Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

COLLINS: Eight reasons to reject Amendment 51

By Helen Collins

Published October 22, 2008 at 5:17 p.m.

Text size  

More Speakout

More stories »

At the risk of being labeled "against the disabled," I oppose Amendment 51's earmarked tax increase to fund another government welfare program. Before you vote, recognize the role of emotions here - feelings of guilt, sympathy and relief that we are not in their plight. (The Rocky endorsed Amendment 51 in an editorial Sept. 24: "Yes on Amendment 51. Who is more deserving than the developmentally disabled?")

Here are eight reasons to vote no. For more, go to NoStateTaxHike.com.

* The state spends $183 million yearly on people with these conditions. Amendment 51 doubles that. Whether you double the recipients or double the amount they get, either way is arbitrary. Legislative analysts reported in the voter guide that doubling recipients would even increase the waiting list.

* The total taxpayer cost is now more than $31,000 per recipient, which is more than many people earn in a year. The state budget next year will be $19 billion. Legislators could instead devote another 1 percent of this exploding state revenue, or $190 million. Does anyone think there isn't 1 percent waste in that budget? Yet is it wise for voters to override the balance made after weighing competing budget needs? The state already spends 1 percent of its budget on this one service for 0.2 percent of the population. This group wants twice as much, plus all the other services we all get. Do the math. How many times can one group have 2 percent of the budget for one program? Fifty times. Then we'll have no money for schools, roads, parks, prisons, courts or anything else.

* Earmarking a tax for an illness is a bad idea. It isn't fiscally responsible to make taxpayers pay for every individual health concern. We should not politicize or bureaucratize personal problems, with special interests using government force to reach into everyone's pockets to support favorite causes. Charitable impulses shrivel when government is responsible for everything and citizens for nothing.

* The waste of government programs compared with private charities is indisputable. Letting citizens spend their own money is the pro-freedom alternative.

* Since 1984, state spending has risen 426 percent, much faster than inflation and population combined. That trend is unsustainable. With an economic crash upon us, government must find more ways to save, not to spend. Even the liberal Denver Post agreed that, in this very scary economy, we cannot afford Amendment 51.

* Here are the fiscal facts: $185 million divided by 5 million state residents is an average tax cost of $37 a person. Since kids don't pay taxes directly, the cost becomes $148 per average family of four. Deduct 10 percent for tourist sales taxes and the cost for this one tax increase is $133 for an average family of four. (Business taxes are passed on to us as higher prices.) Even if you could afford this regressive tax hike, what about fixed-income seniors and poor families? In this recession, do you want to raise their taxes?

* When these taxes were sought locally, they were often defeated. Voters know it is wrong for private nonprofits, which don't pay taxes, to misuse tax-deductible donations given to provide services to the needy and divert them instead for a political campaign to raise other people's taxes. Amendment 51's tax money would pass through the hands of these nonprofits that offer their vague menu of services. Our Web site lists their donors. Thirteen nonprofits in this field gave a total of $469,500, an average of $36,000 each, taken from services their clients need, to try for tens of millions yearly in our taxes. Those making money off this tragedy have a stake in perpetuating maximum dependency. Your compassion, your taxes vs. their manipulation, their windfall. How cynical. How sad.

* Believe it or not, since 51 is a statute, not a constitutional amendment, the legislature would be able to change the whole law, keep the tax and spend the money elsewhere.

Vote rationally, weighing the current economic collapse and future consequences of these dubious tax-extraction tactics. Vote no on Amendment 51.

Helen Collins is a resident of Colorado Springs.

Comments

  • October 23, 2008

    8:54 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    StillUndecided writes:

    We keep hearing people speak out against helping these people most in need, stating that we just need to redirect the waste already in government. These people know that that is impossible and will never happen. The laws are either written so that money cannot be diverted or the interests that receive the money have the lobbying clout to protect their funds. I am guessing that Ms. Collins is fortunate enough to not be disabled or have a disabled family member. She has no idea of the hardships that they endure and how hard it is just to make it through each day. As long as she saves a few bucks on her taxes, she could care less about anyone else. Besides, other people will donate money to take care of these people. She implies that maybe if the charities quit wasting money trying to pass these regressive taxes they would have money to take care of more people. All charities need to lobby for their interests. The "current economic collapse" makes this more important than ever as donations will surely go down as people have less money to spend.

    I encourage Ms. Collins to spend one day with one of the charities that work to help the disabled. She states: "Those making money off this tragedy have a stake in perpetuating maximum dependency. Your compassion, your taxes vs. their manipulation, their windfall. How cynical. How sad." She is obviously speaking about a topic that she knows nothing about. My experience with these charities is that they are barely scraping by. The people working for them donate their time and money and make sure that the people in need get as much as they can. The charities are not wealthy and there is not the waste and extravagance that Ms. Collins is implying.

  • October 23, 2008

    1:28 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    specialneedsmom writes:

    First, to call Amendment 51 "welfare" is insulting and misguided. Ms. Collins is parroting the argument of a group that isn't even identifying who they are! Are you going to follow the advice of people who won't say who they are? Go ahead, visit their site and you will see this. These are "wing" people who want to push forth an agenda of their own. Who knows what it is, but it isn't in the spirit of Coloradans working together to solve our most pressing problems.

    The informed citizen should know that Amendment 51 is not welfare. It will provide funding for people who cannot get out of a bed or chair without assistance. People who cannot feed themselves. People who would like work (and pay taxes!) but who cannot do so without job programs and coaches geared toward their special needs. People who need 24/7 care. People who need in-home services so they don't burn down their apartment by accident.

    There are thousands of people in Colorado who need this assistance. We cannot let a wing group of people determine what is best for our most vulnerable citizens. Amendment 51 came from diligent work by advocates and parents who did already go to the legislature to look for that mythed "pork" in the budget. The legislature worked hard to help, and did what they could - but the fact remains: funds do not exist.

    I ask you Coloradans out there - what kind of state do you want to raise your family in? A state that will be there for you during your darkest days? Or a state that will be controlled by fringe people who will tell you to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - when you don't have feet, let alone boots.

    It is time, Colorado. It is time we remember what life is really about. And what quality of life really is - for everyone.

  • October 23, 2008

    2:30 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    WindsorMom writes:

    I find Ms Collins comments to be offensive. A society is judged on how they care for their most vulnerable members. Most Americans agree that government has some basic responsibilities to our most vulnerable citizens, and one of those is to help people who cannot help themselves. For people with developmental disabilities and their families, there is no safety net or back up options for the vital services they need. I find it strange that Ms Collins does not want to be “labeled as against the disabled” when that is just what she is proposing when she urges a no vote on Amendment 51.

  • October 26, 2008

    11:32 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jtreyno writes:

    In the state of Colorado there are many new movements on this years’ ballot amendment 51 is one of them. The wording of the amendment is lengthy so in short it states that there shall be a sale tax increase of two cants for every ten dollars spent on items that already collect tax. The increase in tax will hopefully be a success in funding the programs for the disabled. Persons that qualify are selected through a network of twenty local nonprofit agencies. The programs include short and long term care for those who cannot take care of themselves by any possible means as well as basic dental and vision services. This would include the individuals whose parents or guardian had been taking care of them then now cannot due to physical or economic problems as well as if they have passed on. A story illustrating this is Russell’s, Russell is a 63-year-old man with Mental Retardation he still lives with his mother who is 85. Russell was put on the waitlist fifteen years ago to receive services for after his mother will pass away. Due to her age and failing health, she worries constantly about who will care for Russell when she dies. The current amount of people being served is about 11,800 people, however the waitlist for any form of service is 9,700 people and is projected to grow to aver 12,000 by the year 2012. With a growth in number that rapid something must be done to help aid the persons to lead a successful normal life. That would be to vote yes on amendment 51. This amendment is not a free ride or hand out for those on it far from it actually. Many of the programs actually include trying to find careers for the individuals to have so they can become self-sustaining as well as help fund our states economic market. If adding the projected persons into the already large number of people receiving job training and care there will be 23,800 new consumers injecting money into the economy which would lead to a tremendous boom in value. My father works as a regional supervisor in the division of vocational rehabilitation. He has an insiders point of view of the programs and their benefits to everyone not just the persons receiving them but to us as well. He is in very strong support of this amendment because of the tremendous good being done in the few that are receiving support now.