Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

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

No on Amendment 52

Constitution the wrong place to mandate transportation spending

Rocky Mountain News

Published September 29, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  
Colorado State Rep. Jack Pommer speaks against Amendment 52.

Video Video: Colorado State Rep. Jack Pommer speaks against Amendment 52. Watch »

Colorado Rep. Cory Gardner speaking in support of Amendment 52.

Video Video: Colorado Rep. Cory Gardner speaking in support of Amendment 52. Watch »

Related Links

More Editorials

More stories »

The authors of Amendment 52, Sen. Josh Penry, R-Fruita, Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, and Rep. Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, have identified a legitimate public priority that regularly gets shortchanged by the legislature - transportation.

They have found an inventive way to guarantee a stream of revenue for highway projects without raising taxes - divert part of the severance-tax windfall that is expected to flow from the state's energy boom to highways.

But they made a crucial mistake. They placed a constitutional amendment rather than a statute on the ballot. And Amendment 52 would clamp a new set of fiscal handcuffs on state appropriators that could not be loosened without a separate vote of the people.

For that reason alone, we cannot urge a yes vote on Amendment 52.

This is truly unfortunate, because Amendment 52 would put real money into transportation. Here's how 52 would work. Half of severance tax revenues would continue to aid communities impacted by energy production, as is now the case.

Then, 52 would cap funding for the Department of Natural Resources - which now gets the remaining 50 percent of severance tax money - at 2008 budget year levels, adjusted for inflation. Those dollars finance the department, the Division of Wildlife and water projects statewide. DNR's future take would rise with inflation, but no higher.

Transportation money would come from the "surplus" severance tax dollars above the cap that would otherwise go to DNR; construction on the Interstate 70 corridor would get priority. In the first year, transportation might get $90 million. And that amount is expected to grow over time with expanded energy production.

The legislature could not use this transportation funding for other projects, a regular occurrence in recent years.

Because total revenues for the 2009 session are forecast to be $100 million below targets, transportation may be pretty much defunded entirely, as it was during the recession a few years ago. Amendment 52 dollars would be shielded from legislative raids.

And yet, Amendment 52 would enact new inflexible mandates; the state should be getting rid of those. Penry and Gardner told us they were reluctant to introduce an amendment but felt that, as energy-related revenues poured into state coffers, the temptation for lawmakers to divert that bounty to other purposes and starve essential infrastructure would be too great.

They're probably right. But had sponsors taken the statutory route, we could have wholeheartedly supported it. The amendment's formulas - for impacted communities, natural resources and transportation - could have been adjusted by the legislature as fiscal circumstances demanded.

As part of the constitution, however, it would take a separate vote of the people to alter any of those spending mandates.

Lawmakers have neglected transportation in recent years in part because their hands have been tied: Amendment 23, Medicaid and corrections spending have absorbed ever-larger chunks of the budget, and those programs must be fully funded.

Transportation needs more help. A lot of it. But it's never a good time to add compulsory spending formulas to the Colorado Constitution. Vote no on Amendment 52.

Comments

  • September 29, 2008

    6:26 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

    The State Constitution is no place for compulsory spending requirements. Just look what the school spending mess is. When money must be spent it gets wasted.

  • September 29, 2008

    6:27 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Treehugger53 writes:

    The Rocky Mountain News is dead on the money in this editorial. The last two sentences say it all.

    Spending needs and priorities change over time, and the legislature needs the flexibility to address issues adequately at any given point. A constitutional amendment would tie their hands.

    A bad policy at any time.

  • September 29, 2008

    7:01 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ghoax writes:

    good roads save lives and is in line with promoting the general welfare, the save the trees keep wildlife happy and thwart development agenda doesn't, the latter only is to appease small agenda driven special interests.

    If you could trust your government to stand by the will of the voters, then, perhaps the commentary would be valid.

    Unfortunately, we need a constitutional amendment to keep the agenda driven Colorado legislature or judges from changing the will of the voters as they have done with regards to gay marriage, gay rights, and environmental issues.

    While the voters clearly spelled out no gay marriage, the legislature passed SB200, providing a backdoor to gay marriage, and a judge made a ruling to allow gay adoption , hence redefining the family, paving the way for gay marriage to win in court. Neither of these issues were put to the test of being in alignment with the will of the voters.

    Of late, the government is working hard to raise taxes on energy producer, hence chasing away the industry and its jobs from Colorado.

    These are only a couple of examples where your government does what it wants if it doesn't like the way we vote, hence a constitutional amendment becomes necessary.

    52 is a clear message to our elected officials that we want control over our government and how our money is spent. We're tired of the irresponsible wasteful, feel good, and agenda driven social spending that expands government powers, that further the environmentalist and gay agenda and the politicians working only to appease a select special interests groups.

    So 52 is more than simply a spending bill, its requiring our government to work for the people. So hear us loud clear, things are going to start changing.

  • September 29, 2008

    7:27 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    BikerChick writes:

    ..
    This is enlightening. Thank you DRMN.

    Just so simple; it is great for the teacher union to get big bucks FOREVER in a constitutional amendment, but it is not OK to improve our highways in perpetuity in the same way.

    You guys at the DRMN need to get your act together. Progressive Marxism for an anachronistic union is great, but improved highway safety and efficiency using the same approach is a bad thing ?

    Where is your outrage at Ritter for neglecting our highways while favoring other unions ? Likewise, where is your outrage at the progressive liberal 'Entitlement Society' fools who control both houses in the Colorado General Assembly. Those clever socialist folks are spending us into the poor house as they expand the state government exponentially.

    Your newspaper can win rave applause by advocating a five percent reduction in the state desk-jockey corps every year for the next ten years, but instead you pick on three innovative legislators.

    Three cheers for the three legislators who energetically are doing the right thing, against seemingly insurmountable odds. In a strange twist, you like their cause but you dislike their approach. Why have you not advocated for the cause ?

    Take a long look in the mirror, as your newspaper swirls in the toilet.
    ..

  • September 29, 2008

    7:33 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    BikerChick writes:

    ..
    V O T E - Y E S - O N - 52 !
    ..

  • September 29, 2008

    8:46 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ColoradoDave writes:

    I will vote against every numbered amendment to the state constitution for none of them belong in the constitution.

    Vote yes on O and put a stop to the madness.

  • September 29, 2008

    10:40 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jbowen43 writes:

    "52 would cap funding for the Department of Natural Resources"

    And that's the real reason for this amendment. This is a purely political ploy to underfund an agency whose workload is going to increase as energy development increases. By limiting the budget of this important agency the proponents get de facto de-regulation. If this passes you can bet the backers will be smirking and laughing at the gullibility of the voters.

  • September 29, 2008

    10:53 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    peterpi writes:

    Dave, I agree with you about the numbered constitutional amendments on this year's ballot. I don't think a single one truly sets broad principles that belong in the state constitution. But, I don't think all of the numbered initiatives on this year's ballot are constitutional amendments. I believe some are statutory amendments.
    Amendment 52 robs Peter to pay Paul. It's "no new taxes" ads are almost as misleading as the ads that claim the "Santa Claus free-for-all" amendment (is it 58?) that removes a tax credit from the oil industry is not a tax increase. Sure, there are no new taxes, but it diverts revenues from another agency, rather than simply asking the voters whether they feel that I-70 and other transportation needs are deserving of new taxes.
    BikerChick, I believe the RMN opposed Amendment 23 for the same reason it's opposing Amendment 52: If it passes, it will be written in stone in the constitution and is inflexible.
    Also, to accuse Vicent Carroll of being a Marxist is hilarious.

  • September 29, 2008

    7:41 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Gonzopozo writes:

    Count me in on the NO more constitutional amendments side.

    A no brainer.

  • September 29, 2008

    9:20 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jay writes:

    the dow is chronically underfunded...and these clowns want to cap their funding?

    wow.