Voters just say 'no' to state ballot measures
By Todd Hartman, Rocky Mountain News
Published November 5, 2008 at 1:23 a.m.
Please download the latest version of Adobe Flash Player, or enable JavaScript for your browser to view the video player.
Voters took a look at one of the longest sets of ballot measures in state history and responded with one short word: "No."
Nine of 14 statewide questions were rejected by voters, including two that had the high-profile support of Gov. Bill Ritter and other top state Democrats. One other was losing late, though still too close to call.
Analysts said a sliding economy played a big role for several measures that called for tax increases or changed the way the state handles its revenues. Voters even clobbered a feel-good request to raise sales taxes to help the disabled, knocking it down by a 2-to-1 ratio.
Former Colorado Gov. Dick Lamm summed it up: "In times of economic stress, people vote no on taxes — that's a no-brainer."
The measures may also have been done in by their sheer numbers: 10 questions were petitioned onto the ballot and four were referred by the legislature.
That doesn't count four pro-labor measures that appeared on the ballot but weren't counted after sponsors abandoned them.
"My sense is that the more ballot issues there are, the more people are inclined to say 'no' to them all," Lamm said, citing voter confusion and a better-safe-than-sorry approach.
Complexity also hurt. Voters already were dizzied by a months- long swirl of political ads. Then, they confronted often confusing language on the ballot.
"Amendments are extremely difficult to get 'yeses' out of," said U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo. "They have to be the kind of amendment that everybody will vote yes to."
Others in the crowd at post- election party for Democrats at the Sheraton Denver Hotel said the wording on the amendments was so confusing that voters just said no to all of them.
Record spending probably added to their demise. At last count, $68 million had been spent on various measures. That included a massive opposition campaign against anti-labor initiatives and an effort to kill a tax credit for the oil and gas industry.
The latter measure, Amendment 58, had the support of Ritter, who wanted to use the $300-plus million the proposal would have generated to fund college scholarships and environmental programs.
But it also faced some $12 million worth of industry attack ads that portrayed the measures as "a tax on us" — overwhelming counterclaims that it would be very hard for the industry to simply pass on the tax when oil and natural gas are sold in global markets based on supply and demand.
Voters appeared to buy the energy industry's argument. They were beating back the measure by about a 4-to-3 ratio with about half the votes counted.
"Initially, I thought (Amendment 58) looked really good, but I'm pretty sure (energy companies) are not going to take it out of their own pocket and (the tax) will all get passed on," said Don Rasmussen, 37, of Thornton, after casting his ballot.
Arguably the most significant question was Amendment 59. It was an effort to carve up a major component of the 1992 Taxpayer's Bill of Right, or TABOR. Under TABOR, when government exceeds constitutional limits on revenues, leftover money is given back to the public through checks to taxpayers. TABOR also requires a vote on all proposals to increase taxes.
Amendment 59 left the latter part of TABOR alone but proposed changing the former by putting excess revenues into a state savings account for education instead of refunding them.
Though education was a winner in several school bond measures, voters were giving Amendment 59 a thumbs-down by about a 4-to-3 ratio.
Pollster Lori Weigel said the measures had "some unique dynamics on all of them," that individually led to their defeat. But, she said, voters were also likely overwhelmed.
"I think we had a bit of information overload," Weigel said. "That's a really hard thing to get a message out on a normal year, much less on a year when people are focused on the president and the senate races."
Also falling: a proposal to shift a state spending account from an emphasis on wildlife and water to road projects. Voters also were narrowly rejecting a measure to end preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex or ethnicity in Colorado and were clobbering an amendment that would legally define a fertilized egg as a person.
The winners? Two issues, one to allow gaming towns to increase gaming limits and funnel revenues to community colleges and one that would ban political contributions from unions or other groups with no-bid government contracts, were leading.
All the "no" votes came despite record spending for or against the measures — the $68 million (and counting) amounting to the most ever spent on issue campaigns in Colorado history. The total was nearly five times the record of $14 million in 2004.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
November 5, 2008
3:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
I think this is an example of no matter how much is spent, a tax increase is an automatic no vote, and rightfully so. These politicians haven't paid attention. Now we will see on a national level if they are going to keep their promises, or will they go the way of the Pelosi promises of the first 100 days, which failed miserably. I also think the public has about had their fill of negative ads, Musgrave a good example of that. Logan county voted for her, but then Logan county kept a crooked Sheriff in office for over ten years too.
November 5, 2008
6:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
Congratulations, George. No-one is more responsible for the results of this election than you. Your mom must be terribly proud.
November 5, 2008
6:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
LesterGovernment writes:
blacksho, I'm sure you meant George Bush but we can also 'thank' George Soros.
November 5, 2008
7:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
uncledave writes:
Well, you get what you pay for and Labor Unions paid big to ensure they are able to keep their hands in workers' pockets whether workers want their representation or not.
November 5, 2008
8:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
JluvDC writes:
Tax increases are never going to pass when the economy is weak. In addition, the economy being weak is a godsend for labor unions because everyone is in panic mode about their jobs and benefits being cut.
November 5, 2008
8:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
uncledave: It's not about unions in our pockets. It's about representation for labor. Given the chance, companies will cut pay, and bennefits to increase profits every time. I'm willing to pay a union for protection from unfair labor practices. I don't always like the union but I understand what it is for and am glad it is there when needed.
November 5, 2008
9:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
fencergal writes:
I voted against all tax increases. I'll need all the money I can get to pay Obama's income taxes and Global Poverty Tax.
November 5, 2008
9:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
HalfABrain writes:
IMHO - This election is a prime example of how a majority of the people of Colorado can have their ballot issue vote decided for them. I would suspect that most of the people that voted against 47 and 49 have any real idea of who or what these issues were aimed at protecting. They certainly did not learn about the issues by reading the actual amendment. I find it sad that a TV/Radio ad that simply states {sic} "A firefighter wants you to vote no on 47 & 49" is enough to convince the population.
I fail to see how a firefighter will not be able to perform his job because as a requirement of being a fireman, he is forced to join the union and have the union dues deducted from his pay check.
Unfortunately, I do understand how a powerful union could produce a very miss-leading ad scaring voters just so that they can get more union dues.
Any organization in power will do anything to get more power. Union bosses are no different that Business bosses.. In the end, all they want is your money.
Be smart, think for yourself!!
November 5, 2008
9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
HalfABrain writes:
Amendment 58 - Just a month ago, the majority of Coloradan's where up in arms about how Big Oil was taking advantage of us and something needs to be done about the huge profits that they are making. Amd 58 was written to close an old loophole that allowed Big Oil to take advantage of us right here in Colorado. To defeat the amendment, Big Oil used some of that profit to create an Ad that said Amd 58 would raise taxes. And without doing any research, the sheep believed it. They don't know how it will raise taxes, but it must be true because the ad had paid actors that looked just like them, used the word Taxes and the music was real good.
Get Smarter, google - Commodity Market
November 5, 2008
10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
PattyCake writes:
I find it odd that when voters expect to have to pay increased taxes, they vote NO! However, when they expect that SOMEOME ELSE will pay the taxes, they vote YES...hence the move to the left we are seeing today. Just remember that there aren't enough rich people to pay for everything in this country, even if the government takes ALL of their money. Soon the tax burden will trickle down to the rest who were hoping that someone else would pay.
November 5, 2008
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
deb writes:
I am saddened that children and adults with developmental disabilities of Colorado still live in one of the five worst states in the union. At least 40 percent of the state gets it that this is a crisis that isn't going to go away. Amendment 51 may have lost this time Mr Lundberg...and people may not know that you voted NO on every bill that came out of the Legislative Committee this last spring, but I do. I am going to call you every day and ask you if you are going to support my family and my son who is on a waiting list. I'm not getting any younger and if he becomes a ward of the state, citizens of Colorado are going to have to pay a lot more than the 2 cents on ten dollars sales tax.
November 5, 2008
10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
geoffd writes:
Could not agree with Deb any more. Sad that Amendment 51 did not pass. Pay tax for a new stadium HELL YA! but a tax to support the citizens of our state that need it the most, it gets soundly defeated. Pretty damn sad
November 5, 2008
11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
windskull writes:
deb...by chance is your son`s name Ryan? email me on yahoo
November 5, 2008
11:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
mojambo writes:
I tend to agree with the position of no tax increases, but #51 was only 2 cents on $10 and directed at the most vulnerable among us.
I'm ashamed that the supposedly new "blue" state didn't see the compassion in such a worthy cause.
November 5, 2008
12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Katester79 writes:
Very disappointed with the results of Udall, Amendment 47, 48 and the one for the children with disabilities. Very unfortunate.
November 5, 2008
12:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
ActualThinker writes:
My daughter's off the wait list now but it made such a impact on us the five years we waited that I busted my butt trying to get this passed. amendment 51 would have cost people hardly anything in a state thats ranked 46th on funding to the disabled and is better fiscally run than most states (ie the money isn't just sitting there that could be used). 4 cents on $20 to help people who already have way too much on their plate, wow.
November 5, 2008
12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
geoffd writes:
A different child?
A 21 yr old person who has CP, confined to a wheelchair, fed through a g-tube and cannot verbalize at all is NOT different. They are DISABLED!! Them and their families or providers need and deserve a lot more support than they get.
November 5, 2008
12:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
zyzzx78 writes:
It seems to me that amendments to the State Constitution should be reserved for major issues and not every little nuance of taxation etc. If you allow all sorts of clutter to be added, it will just dilute the meaning of the original document.
If you want to read if for yourself go to: http://www.i2i.org/Publications/Color...
November 5, 2008
12:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
geoffd writes:
Honey:
Let me know when it is convenient for a "hand out"
I'll be sure to let the people that I serve know and maybe they can just put their disabilities on hold.
November 5, 2008
1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
tucucca writes:
Honey;
I don't think comparing you having to find money for your child's gifted and talented program to a family having to find money for a child with special needs is valid. Your kid will be able to function independently without that program. The people on the waiting list for services, however, will not.
November 5, 2008
1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
fencergal writes:
A few cents on the dollar here, the cost of book there, and pretty soon we are talking about real money. All these "few cents" add up to several dollars on top of the dollars we already pay in taxes. Soon there won't be any dollars left in the paycheck as they will all be spoken for by special interests.
November 5, 2008
1:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
geoffd writes:
it was .02 cents on every $10.00 and did not apply to groceries, prescription medicine, medical services, rent, mortgage payments, insurance, gasoline or utilities. That just seems like a tiny price to pay to help out 12000 Colordoans.
November 5, 2008
1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
geoffd writes:
Wow some people are edgy today.
Just curious what is your neighbors diagnosis?
November 5, 2008
1:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
Headline:
"California voters approve gay-marriage ban"
Just goes to show: when something meaningful is on the ballot, people will still vote Yes.
November 5, 2008
1:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
PattyCake writes:
Okay, call me heartless, but Honey, Please!!! "It's unfortunate that many families have to care for their own??????" What?? Is it society's responsibility more than the family's? I can't believe I read that correctly.
November 5, 2008
1:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
meperdiem writes:
Honey --
Perhaps you need to present your definition of gifted. For someone calling others edgy, you need to look to yourself as well. When we say disability, we are not referring to those on disability payments due to work related injuries or 'slight' disabilities, but those who were born with serious medical conditions that make them permanently disabled. My neighbor has a son whose brain didn't fully develop before he was born. He cannot eat by himself, take care of himself or interact with people the way a 'gifted' child can. I have a daughter who is considered gifted and I would not be foolish enough to think she needs special funding over someone who is truly disabled. I'm guessing you don't know anyone truly disabled or I'm certain your presentation of this issue would be different.
November 5, 2008
1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
PattyCake writes:
Honey...I apologize for jumping down your throat. I went back and read all of the comments and realize that you and I are on the same page. Sorry...yes, edgy today!
November 5, 2008
1:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
BigSky182 writes:
Actual thinker:
That's the attitude that got Obama elected and that is going to destroy this Country.
"Aw C'mon!! You can afford it and I REALLY need it!"
It's called entitlement and once it takes root there is no controlling it. One group wants .02 on 10 dollars. Then another group wants .03 on five dollars.
Soon, the rationale comes out that "hey! If you can afford to smoke you can afford to pay extra for research" so they raise taxes on cigarettes.
Does anyone stop to think that EVERY DIME that you take out of my paycheck inhibits my ability to take care of MY kids??
What makes someone's disabled child more deserving of my money than my own son?
November 5, 2008
1:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
I voted for the tax that would have helped Colorado's disabled. I hate new taxes, too, but it seems we never prioritize enough for these folks in the regular state budget. Was sad to see they got passed over again.
November 5, 2008
2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Anab writes:
What people don't realize on this issue is one of the big questions - what if you have a severely disabled child, and you pass before they do? People with disabilities, including CP, epilepsy, birth defects, etc., do not have a Ronald McDonald type of house in this society to go to. Why? Because those are all not-for-profit, TEMPORARY, solutions to help folks in that kind of need (i.e. an illness, which is not to be confused with a disability), able to garner grants, donations, and sponsorships. A child whose own parents, god forbid, die before them are left with nothing to help them if they currently sit on a wait list for educational and job skills services, living accommodations, etc. Yes, the cents add up. But caring for a disabled person with state resources have got to be a heckuva lot more cents than this amendment would have cost a taxpayer - even the one who through the purchase of an Escalade, would have cost that person only $100 of his sales tax dollars toward those service provisions. GeoffD is right - shameful we build a stadium with our tax money, but don't care for our own Coloradoans.
November 5, 2008
2:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fred writes:
Last year I went to pick up the tax ID and record of payments I made for my children’s daycare.
When I arrived the documentation wasn’t prepared as it had been in previous years. I inquired as to why and the answer was “because 95% of the parents are subsidized and don’t need the tax ID for the tax credit.”
Really? So 5% of the parents actually pay the 10K a year per child while the rest are subsidized? Correct sir. Thanks for supporting your community.
I make a decent living but not a great one. I live in a very small home and I’m particularly frugal with my expenses. I don’t carry credit card debit because I believe if I can’t afford it I don’t need it.
The school system in Denver is so ridiculous that I’ll have to send my children to private schools while paying taxes to support everyone else’s children.
Something isn’t right in this country. Hard work and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is rewarded with a tax bill to support the rest of society.
With all of my taxes combined I’m paying well over 50% of my income to taxes.
Do the freaking math….. a guy who makes 50K a year pays no taxes yet a guy making 100 pays near 50% of his income to taxes.
That means a guy making 50k as a tree trimmer is bringing home roughly the same as the degreed engineer making 100K.
I’m still waiting for the thanks from all the “less fortunate”.
Maybe that thanks will come after I’m broke too.
My children are being robbed for yours. Lovely country we’re living in.
November 5, 2008
2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Invisibly_Disabled writes:
To Deb:
If you do not wish to support your country in this fashion - why don't you just go over to your neighbor's house and ask if you can help this person with brushing their teeth and having somewhat of a social life YOURSELF. Then, maybe you would better understand the actual situation.
It would be smart to aid ballot measures such as this passing, as it would also be a stepping stone towards helping similar developmental issues such as your child's, pass as well. I would guess (it's not my place to assume) that if you took this action, your child would also see even more how much you care about these issues and their progress towards solutions - as it seems from what you've said so far that he/she is also in the realm of needing and deserving aid from his/her own community.
Just try and at least sympathize, if it's too much to empathize.
I myself have a gifted child, and it DOES take a lot of extra time, hard work, emotional struggle. . . I could go on and on about that. My family did not help financially, although they very well had the funds to do so. They reacted the same when a car ran into mine on Valentine's Day in 2003. No sympathy there, either.
November 5, 2008
2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Invisibly_Disabled writes:
Does your child "look" gifted and talented? They might to you, and the people that are close to you and your family. It's the same for me - I sustained a Traumatic Brain Injury - and it took me 3 years to finish my last semester at Colorado State University. If the Disabled Resources Center had not existed, I wouldn't have been able to get my degree. They had elderly volunteers from the Senior Center that read books on tape for me, so I could listen to them 5 times over, since I could not take lecture notes or read on my own any longer. The building was the most understaffed I have ever witnessed. It was knowing that something like this existed that got me through. The feeling that someone cared.
I don't have scars on my face, or need to use a wheelchair- so you and others would not have an immediate signal as to whether something was different about me. I have good days and bad- just like everyone else does. I applied for handicap parking - and then once it was approved, I knew that there were people worse off than I was, so I used my cane and hobbled from my parking spot from way back in the lots, just like everyone else does. I didn't even use it.
I was 23 years old at the time. Now I can walk, type, somewhat write and hear out of one ear. I am "pretty" by societal standards- which makes it even worse. If I have bad speech problems one day - I am considered air heady and just plain dumb. Although I have earned 2 degrees, and . . . well the list could go on and on.
There are so many points to cover, and uncover - that it would take lifetime upon lifetime. Progress, not perfection. Not everyone uses the "system" as carefully and rightful as others. But those that it sustains (barely) should not be treated any differently, just as your child does not deserve to be treated any differently (looked down upon).
Every child and every adult needs and deserves respect and understanding. Since the community is constantly improving, although slowly - these services and resources available for gifted and talented/disabled/handicap/mentally ill . . . are NEEDED. For some - it is the only help they have, and they only reason they feel validation in simply existing.
November 5, 2008
2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
jonesmjh writes:
Colorado ranks #46 in our care of disabled citizens. I find this an outrage and a shame. My disabled child, who will never be able to take care of herself, has no safety net. If and when I die than her care is going to cost the state much more than .02 cents on every $10 of non-essential items. I am heartbroken that more of my fellow Coloradans don't care about those who need it most, but commend and thank those who voted yes on this amendment.
November 5, 2008
2:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Invisibly_Disabled writes:
I meant my comments to be for the community, and not one single person. I began writing a comment in response to "Deb" and then changed my mind, and wrote to "honey".
Sorry about the confusion- I just wanted to clarify; as I just noticed this!
Thanks.
November 5, 2008
2:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
MGD writes:
Fred, welcome to the Socialist States of America.
It's about to get much worse.
The truly wealthy can hide and shelter most of their money so they avoid heavy taxation. The under employed/unemployed and habitual welfare receipients receive tax credits (money) for taxes they don't pay. That leaves the rest of us who work hard, try to save, and make a decent life for our families to foot the bill.
You get taxed when you earn it, when you save it, when you spend it, when you inherit it. Even if you don't see a direct increase in your taxes under Obama, the companies and small businesses you buy services and products from will. They will then pass that on to us. We will have to pay more for the higher cost of companies doing business under an Obama administration.
If and when small companies have to reduce staff to pay the bill for Obama's new tax plan, I hope they start with the Obama supporters.
November 5, 2008
2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
BigSky182 writes:
Fred:
Someone making 240k annually and paying 30% brings home the same amount of money as someone making 420k at 60%.
God Bless America right?
November 5, 2008
3:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
ActualThinker writes:
Way to go bigsky you can do math. No matter that those arent the rates at all, but your math is great!! What exactly does the $20 extra bucks a year you'd have to pay take out that was going to your kids? "Sorry Johnny i know you need braces but I have to pay an extra $20 to help 12,000 disabled children's parents get a little relief and I only have 12 months to spread it out". If you can't dig up $2 a month then you might be disabled yourself when it comes to your spending. Before my daughter got off the waitlist we spent 25% of our income on doctors visits and therapy that she badly needed. As if the time and patience it takes isn't enough we should be burdened with huge bills on top of that as well so you can save your $2 a month.
Whats funny is a big reason Obama was elected was the amount of people who had been republicans until something bad happened for them and it steam rolled and they realized this "every man for itself" attitude doesn't make us a better society. Well I hope when Karma rears its head at you it shows you the way fairly nicely.
November 5, 2008
3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
Amendment 51 supporters,
I empathize with your difficult situations. Special needs children require additional support from the community. However, the state constitution is not the place for tax allocation decisions. We have a legislature to make difficult budget decisions. Please resume your efforts to lobby the legislature. There is so much waste in the state budget that the legislature can surely find dollars to support your worthy cause.
November 5, 2008
3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fred writes:
Actual,
I'm very sorry to hear about what you've had to go through.
I donate as much as I can and sometimes even more to those less fortunate then me. Last month I skipped a meal a day so that I could fill the cupboards of a mentally disabled man.
I did so because I believe it is right to help those in need when I can. I did so while taking food off of my OWN plate.
But that’s not enough for you and those like you. You want to take food off my kid’s plate too. That is greed and entitlement plan and simple.
It’s not just the 20 bucks as you keep claiming. It’s the entire TAX burden that is being carried by those of us making more than 59k. When is enough enough?
It never will be to some. The tax situation will only be satisfying to the left when a doctor is making as the same as a plumber.
Guess what happens then? A world full of plumbers….
November 5, 2008
3:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
grandpaw writes:
I find myself grappling with BigSky's question: "What makes someone's disabled child more deserving of my money than my own son?"
I wonder, is this the same question: What makes the victims of Katrina more deserving than his son? Or, what makes the victims of the tsunami more deserving? Or what makes people like me who get his money in the form of medicare more deserving?
Although I strongly support having a compassionate government, and strongly support helping disaster victims, and I sure like my medicare, I'm not sure how to answer the question. And while I think we are a better country for what we do in this regard, I can understand BigSky's preferring to use the money for his son.
My only answer is a spiritual one, not based on God but on conscience. My answer has something to do with the fact that we live in community and that sometimes the welfare of the community requires personal sacrifice. But while that persuades me, it doesn't sound very persuasive for others. What would your answer be?
November 5, 2008
3:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
grandpaw writes:
Fred: 'You want to take food off my kid’s plate too. That is greed and entitlement plan and simple."
Of course, Fred, as usual, doesn't know what he is talking about. ActualThinker said nothing to justify Fred's attack. If Fred's plight is so bad that he can't spare five or ten bucks without having to skip a meal, then he isn't paying any taxes anyhow. But I am always skeptical when people engage in congratulating themselves.
November 5, 2008
4:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
MGD writes:
Actual Thinker, I think you are wrong in your assement about Republicans and their every man for themselves policies.
I'm a Republican and I tithe 10% of my annual salary every single year. Most of the money I tithe is directed to poverty-related causes. I also donate time and more money to other causes such as Urban Peak, The Denver Rescue Mission, Urban Impact in New Orleans, World Vision, and Special Olympics among others. It's been many years since I volunteered for SO but that was a lot of fun and very heartwarming.
One difference between you and I might be that while we both agree that people in need should be helped, you think the Government should mandate it while I trust in a higher power. The power of good people making good decisions. Yes, I think that is what God wants me to do and it is the right thing to do. Funneling money through the government is like throwing handfuls of water at a small glass across the room. Some of it goes where it was intended but much is just wasted.
Please provide the name and address of a local special needs group or facility and I will send them a check for more than the $20 you were counting on from me.
November 5, 2008
4:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
geoffd writes:
as someone who works with our DD population I was upset when this didn't pass. I understand both sides of the story though and am glad that at least there has been a spotlight put on this issue. I will continue to work and also hope that something can be done for over 12000 kids and adults who need support.
November 5, 2008
4:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
ActualThinker writes:
Fred the math on amendment 51 came out so that the average family making $55K a year would spend $20 a year. So my $2 a month is actually an over estimate because bigsky wouldnt lend me his calculator and I was too lazy to do the actual math.
So if you are making $59K a year how is this $2 a month taking food off your kids plate as you put it? I'd be curious what the food is like at your house if that makes a difference, that's less than top ramen money.
I agree taxes are lengthy and need to be cut. I vote no on taxes all the time, but rather than a big no I think they need to evaluate whether they are valid or not. Raising a child with severe disabilities is enough work on its own without bringing finances in to play, even with full coverage we are already disadvantaged because one of us has to stay home cutting our income severely off the bat. So rather than put that burden on a few like Ramen Fred when he gave up his own food to help someone else why not spread that among so many people that the difference is extremely minor? It's not redistribution of wealth and it shouldnt be applied for everything, but this is a situation that warranted additional consideration.
November 5, 2008
4:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
BigSky182 writes:
Actual thinker I was talking to Fred about Obama's income tax hike.
And as for your $20 a month... sure I can afford that. So what? What right do YOU have to take MY money?
I already give freely to many charities AND I give not-so-freely in taxes on everything.
You are only asking for "a little bit more". So is the School. And the Library. And the State. And the Federal Government. And Welfare. And medicaid. And the Colleges. And the Public Works Department. And the DMV. And the Environmentalists.
Seeing the point yet? 1 tick can't kill a buffalo. 100,000 can.
November 5, 2008
4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
ActualThinker writes:
First its $2 a month not $20. Second no I dont have a RIGHT to take your money. What I would hope is that people would see an issue as important as that and say to their selves, "yes, $2 is nothing to my budget, this issue could use it a lot more than I could". Everyone is going to need a hand at some point in their life and karma can be a real B.
Whats ironic about this whole thing is that its fairly obvious from your comments regarding Obama and old republican philosophies (that have long been abandoned that you dont realize yet) that you most likely voted for Bush (twice). Now you are saying that I dont have a "right" to your $2 but you willingly voted for a president who threw hundreds of billions of dollars at a war that did nothing for us and made even worse decisions for the economy that cost you a HUGE amount more than this amendment would have. hmmmmm
November 5, 2008
5:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
grandpaw writes:
MGD: "One difference between you and I might be that while we both agree that people in need should be helped, you think the Government should mandate it while I trust in a higher power."
From http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291...
[The statistics may or may not be exaggerated, but whichever the case, the problem is severe. It would be much more severe if it were not for government aid. It would be much more severe if we just waited for the Higher Power to do something.]
"In the Asian, African and Latin American countries, well over 500 million people are living in what the World Bank has called "absolute poverty"
Every year 15 million children die of hunger
Throughout the 1990's more than 100 million children will die from illness and starvation.
The World Health Organization estimates that one-third of the world is well-fed, one-third is under-fed one-third is starving- Since you've entered this site at least 200 people have died of starvation. Over 4 million will die this year.
One in twelve people worldwide is malnourished, including 160 million children under the age of 5.
3 billion people in the world today struggle to survive on US$2/day.
In 1994 the Urban Institute in Washington DC estimated that one out of 6 elderly people in the U.S. has an inadequate diet.
One out of every eight children under the age of twelve in the U.S. goes to bed hungry every night.
Every 3.6 seconds someone dies of hunger
It is estimated that some 800 million people in the world suffer from hunger and malnutrition, about 100 times as many as those who actually die from it each year."
Not to worry. Your Higher Power is here to help you.
November 5, 2008
9:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
ES writes:
People voted no for tax increases. With Democrats controlling the white house, senate and house we will be taxed enough. I'm sorry my money will be redistributed to somebody.
November 5, 2008
10:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
Montana residents voted in favor, 70% to 30%, of providing health coverage for every uninsured child in the state, all 37,000 of them.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php...(2008)
If Montana needed an Amendment 51, I have no doubt they would have passed it. Judging by the landslide victory for the "Healthy Montana Kids Plan Act," I bet Montana residents would be appalled by a 10-year wait list.
They wouldn't let it happen to begin with.
Colorado is at the bottom of the list when it comes to assisting it's weakest residents. Be proud, Coloradoans, be proud.
November 6, 2008
1:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
deb writes:
I must point out this needed correction. Amendment 51 is *NOT* a constitutional amendment. So, to the individual who said it was, needs to read the blue book and you will see that it is not a constitutional....but it is a statuatory amendment. There is a difference. Amendment 51 would *not* have changed the constitution.
November 6, 2008
10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
MGD writes:
grandpaw,
I think those numbers are terrible and I try to do something about it every time I can. Twice I've been to Rwanda to work on fresh water projects, served many meals in Denver, built houses in New Orleans and donate time and money when I can.
We have more government and more taxes every year and yet more people are going hungry. More government may not be the answer.
My higher power has given me the drive to serve others. I want to make the decision though, I don't want an ineffective, inefficient and possibly corrupt government agency diluting my dollars, I don't have many to spare. Forcibly taking money I have earned is not something I am going to vote for. If enough people belived in this to make it work then the amendment would have passed.
Make no mistake, my dollar goes further with Food For the Hungry then it does through any government agency.
If you don't have a special needs child at home then please donate your time or money to the cause that you believe in. I'll do it. I'm still waiting for the name and address of a local agency to whom I can send a check. I'll put it in the mail today, I'm not shirking my responsibility to my community, I just voted to maintain authority over how I share my earnings.