Loosening a straitjacket
Amendment 59 would solve two constitutional problems at once
Rocky Mountain News
Published September 19, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Video: Teacher Mary Kreutzer speaks in support of Amendment 59. Watch »
Video: Penn Pfiffner, from the Independence Institute, speaks against Amendment 59. Watch »
Colorado voters have a chance this fall to complete a task that state lawmakers tried but failed to accomplish in the spring of 2004: pass a plan that liberates the legislature from the spending cap of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights and the spending mandates of Amendment 23.
Voters eventually did lift TABOR's spending limits for five years by passing Referendum C three years ago. But that relief will expire in due course, while the spending mandate for education imposed by Amendment 23 (inflation plus 1 percent through 2010 and no less than the inflation rate thereafter) will continue in perpetuity unless something is done.
Amendment 59, on this fall's ballot, would take care of both of these conflicting constitutional provisions. We urge voters to support it.
On the one hand, Amendment 59 would essentially make Ref C permanent, except that TABOR surpluses would be put into the State Education Fund rather than flow into general revenues. But the effect would be similar: freeing up resources the legislature could allocate depending on current needs.
Make no mistake: While Amendment 59 is not a tax hike, it would eliminate rebates that taxpayers otherwise would receive whenever a TABOR surplus occurs. Voters who believe the money would do more good in private hands should obviously oppose the measure.
Why don't we? Because TABOR's spending limits, over time, shrink the size of government as a percentage of the state economy. That may sound appealing - at least it does to us - but in practice it means that state revenues simply do not keep pace with the public's expectations for such services as roads and higher education. That is particularly the case when significant elements of the state budget, such as Medicaid and prisons, have been increasing at a rate faster than inflation for many years and show few signs of slowing down.
Meanwhile, Amendment 59 eliminates a second long-term threat to the state budget: the cost-of-living escalator for K-12 education that voters unwisely approved eight years ago in Amendment 23. In most years, of course, lawmakers will increase K-12 spending by at least the inflation rate anyway. But there are times - such as during severe recession or high inflation - when pegging spending to a strict formula is simply not responsible because of the way it cannibalizes the rest of the state budget.
Indeed, Amendment 23 was approved just a year before what became the worst falloff in state revenues since the Great Depression. Other programs were treated much more harshly than they might have been had lawmakers been able to spread the budgetary pain.
Those unprotected programs could take an even worse beating if the sort of double-digit inflation that hit this country in the late 1970s ever returns - and don't think it couldn't. Indeed, it is hard to exaggerate how irresponsible the sponsors of Amendment 23 were (some of whom now, ironically, back 59) to put an inflation escalator for a major spending program into the constitution.
Like any ballot measure, 59 isn't perfect. We fear, for example, that over the course of many years the education fund will become so large that the legislature wouldn't be able to find a prudent use for it all. The only solutions at that point: a tax cut or another constitutional amendment, neither of which would be easy to engineer.
For the time being, however, the concern over the size of the education fund remains remote, while the budgetary problems that Amendment 59 targets loom on the near horizon. The good news is that they can be solved - if voters approve Amendment 59 on Nov. 4.
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.
September 19, 2008
3:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Shadow writes:
Liberate the legislature??? What is this. The reason a cap was placed by the voters was to control the out of hand spending by the legislature. If we continue to give them free riegn on spending all we will receive is higher taxes, more welfare programs and richer legisltaures.
September 19, 2008
5:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
hotfoam writes:
"pass a plan that liberates the legislature from the spending cap of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights..."
Can't....stop....laughing....
September 19, 2008
6:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
This plan is backed by those reform minded unions [NEA and CEA], you know ones that want to strike at progressive minded DPS superintendent Bennet.
These must be a labor handout in here somewhere.
September 19, 2008
6:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
VVVV writes:
So the prisoners we take from other states are taking money out of our higher education? Sounds to me like we either need to turn them away, or change certain laws so we aren't locking so many people up in prison.
I think it's hilarious that this is being touted as an achievement simply because it kills two rather useful, and extremely meaningful birds with one poorly written, not quite acceptable stone. Isn't passing poorly written amendments, with unintended consequences left to another day, exactly how we got into this mess?
If the legislature was able to spend more time thinking, and less time grandstanding, maybe they could come up with two equally valid amendments that don't violate the single subject law, or maybe they could tackle the single subject law first, which has continuously been used as a sledgehammer in court to strike down valid proposals. Why not three subjects? But of course that also would require some forethought, one of two things it has become glaringly obvious the politicians completely lack. The patience to think something completely through seems to be the other.
September 19, 2008
7:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Art writes:
Lest we forget, the voters of Colorado passed the TABOR amendment precisely for the reason of handcuffing the legislature. This amendment would once again give them the ability to tax and spend to their hearts content without regard to the will of the people. If you beleive that taxes are too low and you want to see them higher then vote for 59. If you think that Colorado has escaped some of the problems that have taken place in other states and that TABOR has been the reason for the relative financial well being of the state then vote no on 59
September 19, 2008
7:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
woodwose writes:
While TABOR turned out to have an un-intended ratcheting down affect on the size of government over time, the solution should not be to dig a hole and throw all the extra revenue the government receives into it. And that's exactly what Ammendment 59 does.
It's basically a bait-and-switch game, Ammendment 23 is beating up everyone by mandating unsustainable increases in education spending, so here comes Ammendment 59 to the rescue. Oh and by the way, Ammendment 59 has the side effect of fulfilling every politician's wet dream - to get rid of TABOR forever.
TABOR, despite it's warts, is still the best way to keep our idiot politicians on a short leash. Reformulate TABOR to get rid of the ratcheting down effect, but don't get rid of it completely.
Vote a big NO on Ammendment 59.
September 19, 2008
10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Faux_Noise writes:
No one will need to bail the state out, it is constiutionally prevented from deficit spending.
The will of the people through their elected representatives will prioritize spending and cutbacks as budgetary necesities dictate. Taxes still will not rise without a vote of the people.
September 19, 2008
10:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
jackwoehr writes:
"That is particularly the case when significant elements of the state budget, such as Medicaid and prisons, have been increasing at a rate faster than inflation for many years and show few signs of slowing down."
Um, how about solving the problem instead of pouring money into a non-solution? WHY are the prisons increasing so quickly?
Prisons for all, private prisons for profit, the war on drugs, the incipient police state are the problem. Not TABOR.
September 19, 2008
12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Woodwose, the ratchet affect of TABOR is not unintended, it's deliberate. Douglas Bruce knew exactly what he was doing, and wants to strangle government. He belongs to the Grover Nyquist school of non-government.
I, for one, don't want to go through the disastrous years of the early 2000's again. I'm with the Rocky, vote Yes on 59!
September 19, 2008
12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
Amendment 23 was approved just a year before what became the worst falloff in state revenues since the Great Depression......
This does not compute or make sense.. Whoever made this statement is doing fuzzy math.
How is not recieving your tax refund money from a surplus and having the state take it, not a tax hike?
We the people have learned NEVER to trust a government with more of your hard earned money. It is shear madness to give them more money than the should spend. The money will only burn holes in their pockets.
Tough times? Prices going up? Inflation? Do what we the people do tighten your belts. Stop wasting money on things that you WANT instead of things that you NEED. Figure out what the difference is without we the people paying for your wants.
The key to a financially fit future is when times are tough you excercise caution in spending. Put a small amount away for a rainy day. Stop spending your paycheck on "stuff". The state needs to stop living from paycheck to paycheck.
If amendment 23 passes, the state will blow all that money like drunken sailors and have nothing to show for it but a bunch of reciepts that don't add up.
It is up to we the people to hold our government fiscally responsible.
September 19, 2008
12:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
Many people, including me, tried to warn voters about Ref C and D. They were not only wasteful, dishonest proposals. They were the foot in the door to killing TABOR. They had to get rid of the rebates first. People receiving their money back could see how much money the state collected over the budget. As long as those rebates kept arriving in voters' mailboxes, it would be impossible to get them to kill the budget provisions of TABOR.
Ref C has proven to be a pack of lies attached to a near blank check for politicians. Anyone know how much extra money it provided for spending? Anyone know where it went? The promise was that if we just gave them Ref C it would loosen the ratchet and provide the emergency funds to fix problems. Their estimates of the revenue were quite low. Actual revenue reported after one year was well above the estimates and the sources that produce that revenue have over produced for the benefit of government since then.
Now comes Amendment 59. This is the jackpot the politicians have been working for all along. They can forever kill TABOR and keep every dime they take even when there is no need for it. They are going to dump it in various slush funds with an education label quickly slapped on the lids.
We need to vote this one down right now. They made pretzels of the single issue law to put this together with Amendment 23 because they knew that two separate amendments would result in 23 going down and TABOR staying strong.
Don't buy the politicians' lies again. We lost our rebates for five years and now, with the rebates on the horizon, the politicians have to act fast to keep the money pot full and the people ignorant. Both sides of the aisle want to bury their heads in the public money trough and spend spend spend without any possibility of the voters having any chance of getting their money back.
They are spending it on the "children." Guess what. The parents need their money back so they can buy milk and bread. Pay for the mortgage and utilities. Parents need that money far more than do the bureaucrats in the legislature and the schools.
Time to make it clear to the politicians that we aren't a bunch of fools who will buy the lies twice.
VOTE NO.
Ff they want change, let them first tell us the truth on Ref C. Let them separate the issues so we can decide each issue on its own merits. One vote on TABOR and one vote on Amendment 23. TABOR saved us from the disasters other states had of balancing one year's budget on the promise of the next year's taxes and ending up with the choice of cutting necessary programs because fluff and feathers took the money last year. Please remember that this bunch of liars only wants their power to tax and spend back and permanently kept away from the us, the peasants.
September 19, 2008
12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
If they raise the casino limits then use part of that money. they want to use it for community colleges but you have to educate kids to be smart enough to get there. I won't vote for anything that takes money out of my pocket no matter how they word it or spend it. These politicians have grandiose visions that are way out of line with reality.
September 19, 2008
8:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
seeingeyeseesall writes:
Screw government. The national debt was effectively doubled over the past two weeks with no vote by anyone. TABOR is one of few things I've seen done right by the citizenry and communities like Vail, who voted to exempt themselves from it, are in shock now with average local property tax increases of 42% this year.
September 19, 2008
8:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Zim writes:
RE: "Make no mistake: While Amendment 59 is not a tax hike, it would eliminate rebates that taxpayers otherwise would receive whenever a TABOR surplus occurs. Voters who believe the money would do more good in private hands should obviously oppose the measure."
Well, look at me opposing it then. I do expect the Rocky editorial staff to not use politico speak when trying to convince me of their position. Money that I would have had, that is instead now in the hands of the government, is a tax. Framing it otherwise is a shell game.
Considering the controversial spending after Referendum C was passed, why would I, using the Rocky's laughable language, "pass a plan that liberates the legislature"? They work more responsibly shackled.
TABOR works fine. If they want more money from us-- put it on the ballet.
September 19, 2008
11:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
clyde writes:
Anyone able to say where the Ref C money has disappeared? That's a lot of moolah that has just been quietly put somewhere. C'mon guys! Anyone know where? And they want more....
September 20, 2008
7:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
woodwose writes:
peterpi: What was so disasterous about the early 2000's?
It was painful for politicians and their pet programs, it was possibly painful for some government employees. So what? Private sector employees have to worry about slowdowns, layoffs and closings, so my heart doesn't particularly bleed when government employees feel some of the same pain.
September 21, 2008
8:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Castle writes:
The conserns of "education" are mentioned too often to make me think this isn't a push by the NEA and other teacher unions. Maybe when the public sees educated students coming out of the government education system, there could be talks to fund more. Untill the NEA and teacher unions show they can really educate out youth, they don't need to ask for more money. If the dead wood, redundent school disticts and administraters were cut out there would be more money to educated. That's your job.
October 6, 2008
8:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
gasser writes:
Zim is right, when government takes more of our money, or keeps more of our money, in the form of taxes, that's a tax hike no matter what the editors call it. Vote NO on 59!
October 9, 2008
9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
GVG17 writes:
Once the government finds a way to get our money, they find ways to keep it forever.
I voted no for Ref C and I'm voting no on this.
It's my money and I want to keep it.
October 11, 2008
9:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
LetsTalk writes:
Agree with most of the writers that we need to vote NO on the 59 - SAFE - Savings Account for Education. It's not really a savings account for education - only 10% at first goes into a savings account for education, and only until that fund gets fully funded. It's a shell game to get voters to think they are voting for kids when in reality most of the revenue can be used however the legislature wants (and spend every dime) A much more prudent measure would be to put refunds into a Savings Account for Colorado - a rainy day fund, only until it is fully funded.
Please let everyone you know to not tangle our constitution further - and vote "no" on 59
October 25, 2008
8:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
pruller writes:
You can’t solve every problem by throwing money at it. If you listened closely to the last presidential debate, both candidates agreed that we have one of the most expensive educational systems with less than acceptable results. Statistically we spend a little over fifteen percent of our public funds on education while other countries that we are in competition with or want to emulate spend about eleven percent. The proponents and supporting organizations of Amendment #59 have not done their homework and with the repeal of the TABOR Act accept a tax and spend government with no accountability. Vote no on Amendment #59.
Why is AARP supporting an amendment that takes money away from people living on fixed income?
October 31, 2008
12:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
finklesteinF writes:
How can schools run buses and heat when utility cost raise 150% in one year?
Amendment 23 is inflation plus 1%.
Any answers?
October 31, 2008
12:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
finklesteinF writes:
To quote hotfoam
"Can't......stop...........laughing".
It's no laughing matter.