Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

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

BLAKE: Ta-ta TABOR rebates?

Peter Blake

Published September 11, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »

Should Amendment 59 pass Nov. 4, you can say goodbye forever to those TABOR tax rebates you haven't seen for years - and probably won't see for five or more years even if it doesn't.

It looks as though the so-called "Savings Account for Education" (SAFE) proposal will indeed pass, because its promoters have piles of money and endorsements, while the few outspoken opponents have only a Web site or two.

SAFE would effectively eliminate the rebates sent to taxpayers when the state collects more money than it is allowed to under TABOR. The extra money would go instead into a special education fund. The amendment would also eliminate the spending mandate of Amendment 23, passed in 2000. A sort of anti-TABOR, it requires that spending on K-12 education be increased by the rate of inflation plus 1 percent until 2011, and by the inflation rate forever after.

SAFE's main purpose "is to trade off spending mandates in Amendment 23 for the effective elimination of the revenue limit in TABOR," according to Carol Hedges of the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute.

Although 59's proponents are eager to point out that TABOR's prohibition against tax hikes without voter approval would remain in place, passage would effectively eliminate TABOR's other major goal: Limiting, even shrinking, the role of government in the state's economic life.

SAFE is the brainchild of House Speaker Andrew Romanoff. Having failed to convince lawmakers to put it on the ballot by referendum, he engineered a successful petition drive this summer. He argues that its other virtues include putting more money into the state's rainy-day fund while making sure highways still get their share of surplus state funds.

Although it is nominally designed to provide money for P-12 (formerly K-12) education, and the Colorado Education Association has kicked in $85,000, the ballot issue is drawing support from a wide variety of groups.

The Colorado Bar Association has contributed $25,000, Colorado AARP $15,000, the Colorado Medical Society $5,000. Even Newmont USA, a gold mining firm, gave $15,000.

But the biggest giver has been the Denver Foundation, with $280,000 to date. That's just a fraction of what it's prepared to invest. It deposited $1 million into its own issue committee in July, and $720,000 remains to be transferred.

Why? Said foundation chief David Miller: "As I understand it, SAFE does more than just support education. If it passes, it would free up general fund dollars for health care, which is why the Colorado Health Foundation is a big supporter."

It's kicked in $200,000.

Hedges confirmed the broader, less advertised, purpose of SAFE. "A dedicated source of funding for schools could reduce the pressure on the general fund, and in turn allow legislators more opportunity for investing in other priorities, such as health care, higher education and transportation."

Hedges' organization has set up its own issue committee to help promote SAFE.

Technically, SAFE would leave in place the Arveschoug-Bird law limiting the growth of the general fund to 6 percent a year. But Senate Minority Leader Andy McElhany, R-Colorado Springs, is not impressed. "Salting away the extra cash in a separate fund before it can be counted against the overall budget or the 6 percent growth limit is a neat accounting trick, but it doesn't leave the taxpayers any better off," he said.

SAFE has collected a long list of endorsements. "Of all the organizations we've approached, not a single one is in opposition," said Romanoff. "OK, we didn't approach the Independence Institute."

One of the odder endorsements came from Republican Attorney General John Suthers. He's "not excited" about it, but he credits Romanoff with coming up with "the best solution I've seen" to the TABOR-Amendment 23 "conundrum" without violating the single-subject rule. The state budget problem was aggravated because Republicans "didn't show any leadership" when they controlled state government, Suthers said.

Peter Blake is a former Rocky Mountain News political columnist. He can be reached at pblake0705@comcast.net.

Comments

  • September 11, 2008

    4:44 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    p_myers661 writes:

    No opposition and no funding to oppose this measure?
    Strange that the politicians would want to end the practice that puts money back in the hands of those who earned it? Strange that they want to stuff it into slush funds stamped with the education label? More money to pay back the education unions for their support. More money to throw down the black hole of public education.

    Education needs reform not a windfall. Get rid of the students who disrupt classes. Drop the unions and cut the administration by 2/3. Pass legislation that gives teachers immunity for all non-physical discipline in a classroom and caps any legal damages at 100K. Cover teachers with insurance for legal costs and require competence in the classroom. That is what education needs, not more money.

    We need to get the word out that this is a backdoor attempt to gut TABOR and refill the political slush funds. Vote no no no. Hopefully the word will get out so those who are only going to vote so they can approve Right To Work, will know what a nest of snakes this measure holds.

  • September 11, 2008

    6:10 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    roger44 writes:

    p_myers661, good post. Administration is eating up most of the pie, this country has fallen behind in education standings, and we will never catch up as long as these politicians think pouring money into it will work. when I read the Governor said the immigration system was broke, I thought where he he been for the last 20 years? shame on him

  • September 11, 2008

    2:21 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    cpd writes:

    When the House Speaker can't get a bill through the legislature and can't get them to put it on the ballot by referendum, it makes the bill suspect even though he got the few thousand signatures to get it on the ballot. Obviously, the legislature thinks tampering with TABOR is dynamite in spite of the Amendment 23 mess. What's a legislator not to like about having a bucket of taxpayer refund money to spend on pet projects when voters initiated and voted in the legislation to enable it. Blog against this folks.

  • September 11, 2008

    2:29 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mokey writes:

    This is a rediculous column because Amendment 23 and this Amendment to modify A23 are both exactly what TABOR allows for. In other words government IS restricted and overall very conservative in Colorado compared to all other states. It is only when citizens can 1) gather enough signatures to get something on the ballot and 2) a majority of citizens vote with in in the affirmative do we as a society allow the gates to be opened enough pay for the specific program allowed for in the initiative.

    In addition, if enough citizens vote against the measure then it WILL NOT become law.

    Finally, TABOR refunds essentially means that the government has collected more revenue that it is constitutionally allowed to collect. If it collects too much, we overpaid and are due a refund. If it does collect enought, government must balance itself through budget cuts.

    I find it a little rediculous to on the one hand praise the sanctity of TABOR and on the other to criticize those who follow TABOR succinctly. TABOR DOES NOT mean you can't grow government ever.

  • September 11, 2008

    2:47 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mokey writes:

    Note to self...proof read first. In the second to last paragraph (my comment above), the last sentence should say that if revenues under TABOR fall short of the cap, then government must cut budgets and balance. Which means if the state budget was 15 billion even, but revenues were only going to 14.8 billion, the state would have to cut 200 million to balance.

    The TABOR refund comes into play if current law allows revenues to increase by 150 million dollars, but the state is estimated to bring in 175 million in revenues. Then the 25 million would have to be refunded to voters. It's not free money, it just means we all collectively overpaid -- and we get the $$ back.

    CPD simply doesn't understand the process, which is all WITHIN the law. In order to have the legislature refer a ballot issue directly to the voters, the "referred measure" must obtain two-thirds of the votes in BOTH the Senate and House to make it. The Speaker couldn't make that happen and so he pursued another LEGAL avenue but collecting the necessary signatures to have it placed on the ballot as a citizens initiative.

    Amendment 59 is a government REFORM of Amendment 23. Amendment 23 allowed for K-12 Education to receive an increase every year EVEN during an economic downturn. Therefore, in order to balance the books -- after cutting other programs -- an additional cut on top of those was required to pay for the Amendment 23 increase.

  • September 11, 2008

    3:15 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    cpd writes:

    Mokey,
    Who said anything about being outside the law. Romanoff knows the process and so do I. Suspicion of the content of the amendment is my point in my post. How Amendment 23 works was painfully clear a few years ago. Romanoff's legislation is bad no matter how it gets enacted under the law. Fixing A23 by putting your and my refund for excess taxes paid in an alleged "education fund" and the rainy day fund bucket is not where I want it to go.

  • September 11, 2008

    3:56 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    gasser writes:

    It sounds like Romanoff is asking the taxpayers for a blank check.

  • September 11, 2008

    4:23 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mokey writes:

    Cpd, I didn't want to imply that you didn't understand TABOR as you seem well versed on the subject. But you have to admit that since there are only about 100 people OR less (I want to say only about a dozen understand it at a scientific level) who really understand TABOR, you get a lot of people who come on this blog and either blame Gov. Ritter for TABOR or who say that changing TABOR within the parameters set forth in TABOR is somehow illegal or wrong.

    Given the economy, there could be a revolt against anything that will require extra revenue generation (I mean a tax increase). I know there's a measure to provide additional services to the developmentally disabled. If anyone deserves our help it is them. But with gas not as high but still up, food up, and air fares up, etc. it may also fall victim to citizen concerns about just getting by.

    I am also weary about throwing good money after bad since the teachers themselves (NEA) resist any efforts at reform (e.g. pay for performance). They want hefty pay increases, and five-star retirement plans, but don't want to be held to even reasonable standards on striving for excellence in education.

    One final note on fiscal prudence is that we really have more to worry about in Washington and how there seems to be no end and certainly no limits to the spending spree they are on. The deficit/National Debt along with rising Medicare and Social Security obligations means we are heading for a huge economic train wreck that will likely make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park. There is even talk about printing EVEN MORE money to issue another round of stimulus checks.

    This is the REAL issue.

  • September 11, 2008

    6:57 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    p_myers661 writes:

    While I count myself among those who understand all the provisions of TABOR, feel free to disagree or correct me.

    The real problem here is that the refunds are for, as stated above, a refund of excess tax collections. It even takes into account sales taxes in its refund to all who file a return. The state is free to keep those excess revenues for up to five years in order to balance out the ups and downs of the tax revenues.

    The problems of tight budgets we faced came not from TABOR, but from the fact that the legislature failed to refund the revenues and kept all refunds until the last minute. That created a situation where the legislature had to refund money in a few lean years because they had kept the money in fat years.

    This provision will be a second Ref C with a lot of cash going to projects without a lot of oversight. Ref C was anticipated to produce a lot less revenue than it did. Where is it? What did it fund? We bought a pig in a poke and were told to "trust us" by those same politicians who are the reasons we passed TABOR in the first place.

    Just say no to this one. We may not really NEED the refunds but we earned the money and we do NEED to keep polticians on a short leash. I heard, not sure of the accuracy, that A23 has a sunset provision and would expire in the near future.

    Romanoff put this through the initiative process because he can hide his part in this from most people. Other legislators want this like a kid wants Christmas. They just realize that stealing the refund money from the voters is a bad idea for anyone thinking about running for re-election.

    Time to remind Romanoff that Colorado voters remember the lies we heard about Ref C. Now we just have to see how much money the educrats and various beneficiaries of the legislative slush funds are going to spend. We don't need a lot of money. We just need to inform the general public about this one and it will fall over and die because Coloradoans blame themselves the first time they're fooled.

  • September 11, 2008

    8:17 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mmannino writes:

    This amendment effectively ends TABOR. If you believe in limited government, oppose this amendment. This amendment is almost a blank check for government excess. We have recepients of this largesse ready to fund an aggressive campaign to steal excess tax revenues.

  • September 11, 2008

    8:18 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jbowen43 writes:

    I hope you're right and SAFE passes because we need it. As for the public school haters they can always move to New Orleans.

  • September 11, 2008

    9:03 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike846 writes:

    This is another "back-door" attempt to further gut Tabor, and once again, as with 23 and C, its being artfully supported as being "for the kids". Bull. How many times will voters buy this ridiculous outright lie? Vote NO on 59. Mike

  • September 11, 2008

    9:09 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    gasser writes:

    Jbowen, you say you hope this passes because "we need it". How much money are we talking about? Does anyone know? How can you say we need it when we have no idea how much it is? Do we need $1 billion more? $5 billion more? $20 billion more? Where does it end? P_Myers pointed out that Ref C is bringing in a lot more money than was anticipated. Why can't the state spend that money on education? Didn't they say that was what Ref C was for?

  • September 12, 2008

    7:34 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    HopiMedicineMan writes:

    The Rocky needs but one reporter, Peter Blake. The rest is pure charity.

  • September 14, 2008

    6:26 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Cwillyrun1 writes:

    This isn't about adding to the support in taxpayer money to education, it's about making it possible to take the money in a roundabout way for things we taxpayers may not want our money to go to.

    Pretty clear what the intent is.......

  • September 16, 2008

    9:20 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    TroyJGrice writes:

    We can solve our education mess by abolishing school socialism.

    Jbowen is a typical "progressive", espousing the fantasy that all our "needs" can be fulfilled if only government can be allowed to extract and redistribute enough wealth.

    When are you sheeple going to wake up?