All I heard was, "Bla, bla, bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla"
Printable View
All I heard was, "Bla, bla, bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla"
I want you guys to scratch and claw for every nickel and dime. Why should a governmental entity get an even remotely blank check to do anything? I deal with municipalities and state governments all the time. Efficiency is not part of the operating procedure. Granted the counties I deal with have more money than god himself (hat tip Monique). I've also dealt with the fine institution that is Cook County and the State of Illinois. I can assure you that if Hurricanes came off Lake Michigan a carbon copy of what happened in NOLA would happen in Chicago.Quote:
Originally Posted by jibij
As far as C and D. I still can't see the mean streets picture the pro C and D people are painting. Our state gov't spending has increased at 4.2% per year since TABOR was enacted. The graduation rate has increased a full two percentage points from 1997 to 2003. As you drive the I-25 corridor more and more homes are going up. bringing more and more tax payers every day.
The real problem with the language of the deal is that the authors phrase the amount we won't get back is $3 billion. When in actuality if the economy continues its rebound that amount can grow infinitely. Additionally, the tax base is also ratcheted up constantly, decreasing the amount of refunds after the supposed five year window.
Now if there was proposal to reform Amendment 23, I'd probably check the yes box. To say TABOR is all together bad(it is by no means perfect) because the idiocy that is Amendment 23 trying to break CO's budget is a farce.
What checking yes on Ref. C and D really does is allow the state legislators in CO to avoid making tough decisions on education, medicaid(read about Phil Bredesen in TN reforming that state's absolute debacle of TennCare, on a side note watch this guy for 2008 if he pulls this off), immigration, and budget reform. I for one think that focusing on spending less of my money to get the same thing done is what the legislature is for. I might be wrong.
crap, I don't have the time right now and was gonna spend a bunch of time on a big pro C&D screed but... looks like that won't happen maybe it will...
Bottom line: Ratcheting back TABOR a bit is a very good thing for the state. C&D represents a fairly modest TABOR limitation.
Budget wise- The state has already basically done away with "the fat" has started in on "the muscle" and if not remedied will soon be hacking at "the bone."
Budgeting by referendum is incredibly stupid.
You have the time. I need to get edumacated. The Denver Post in a little biased and reactionary.Quote:
Originally Posted by lemon boy
Aiigght first of all lets start with the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights ("TABOR") [also, please forgive if I bugger some stuff up I'm a bit rusty on some of this stuff]...
CRAP at the end of typing this whole thing out [below] a quick internet search turned up this site which while I think somewhat biased does explain the competing forces in the budget better than I do (less crabby and in nice plain language: http://www.coloradobudget.com/ (spancered by the Bighorn Center)
TABOR is some good, some bad. The good is the constraining factor it has had on State spending and the endless tinkering the legislature would like to do. The bad though is the inability to act in a meaningful way as our elected representatives. We pay these people to represent our views in the State govt and more importantly to deal with all the details of running the govt.
Instead what we have is a giant train wreck* where in order to get anything meaniful done we have to have a referendum. And quick what are the basic ways to get them? Voter initiative (gathering sigs) or legislative request. [I'll try not to rant about voter initiatives too much]
I see a fair amount of confusion about how things are being funded also re: Fast Trax and the Stadium: items (and big ticket ones to be sure) specifically endorsed by the taxpayers through ballots already. This isn't about those things it is about the standard boring stuff that the state funds and pays for with the taxes it normally collects.
The three items that have forced the lege into this compromise deal (there was going to be a TABOR referendum this year regardless of who was in power, and this one was a nicely split baby proposed by the then minority dems but pretty well instantly signed on by most of the Reps as well) because both major sides agree there is a HUGE problem and there are three factors working in concert which have really put the hurt on govt. spending: 1. TABOR, 2. Gallagher, 3. Amendment 23 thus forcing through a series of poorly thought out voter initatives K-12 education to be the proverbial 500# gorilla on the books. Add to that teh 1st year TABOR madness whereby through a loophole in TABOR the lege was able to hold back the first year TABOR excess for a year (and thus every subsequent year), relying on the next year's excess to pay for it (this is where the TABOR ratchet was really felt) and all the shit hit the fan when the State had less in the subsequent year's excess than it owed (a buget item that counted for TABOR spending limits), can't remember what year it was 02? 03?.
Shit, see now I'm rambling. Would that we could just elect someone to deal with all the BS budgeting? Oh well.
The basic formula that has forced all of the major players in Colorado's elected leadership to the C & D table are: Limited revenue growth and an inability to raise taxes (two separate issues), functionally decreasing expenditures and mandated spending items. In even fewer words: the shit we have to spend money on is growing faster than the money we have to spend on it is. All in one of the country's fastest growing states.
Some specific issues as discussed by others above:
GFP - your point 1) I don't know what version of C you read says but mine says that the lege is free to keep and spend the TABOR excess for 5 years and resets the TABOR revenue limit as the highest revenue anywhere in the 5 years but they are specifically not authorized to increase taxes so the basic tax rates would all stay the same but the refunds would basically cease. Now, it is possible that somebody would get a separate referendum out on a real tax increase but it would have to be sepearate (single issue voting rules).
point 2) I bet what is operating here is that C/D will increase the pot size allowing other things to be funded by basic default.
As for whether or not higher ed will go up by 80% I don't know about the exact projection but that doesn't sound out of line given A23s effect on the State budget (unless we pass one for Higher Ed).
MD9 - I think that you might be a little bit confused about how the line items get funded but alas, it is too late cause you've voted and you're moving but basically between the voter initatives the lege is not able to direct funds to all these other "really important" things because they have voter mandated spending items and revenue limitations, plus due to TABOR they must come to the voters to fund any kind of new/increased project.
Mr-G re: your point on the transportation projects IIRC these were all specifically voter ratified under the TABOR process - no harm/no foul.
Foggy et al: Rainy Day Fund: oh yeah, I would love to have a RDF of some kind and I think that is the logical next step past C&D, it would be an important piece in the revenue and expenditure smoothing puzzle.
C & D = good for Colorado.
Sorry all, I'm disappointed even in myself at this response but...that's what I got the energy for right now...will try to respond to specific questions tomorrow.
*A train wreck that was deliberately forseen and hoped for by TABOR's father, Doug Bruce a true "small govt" kind of guy, and I do mean SMALL GOVT. If there were basically no State govt, DB would be a happy happy man.
Vote Yes!
Vote Yes!
Seriously vote yes!
All schools in Colorado will have to cut budgets, again, if this does not pass. Its not even about teacher salaries. Its about class size and keeping a school functional.
It would be like if we all had to go back to skinny skis and leather boots :nonono2: :nonono2: :nonono2:
Vote YES!
NO box checked X 2. I just can't see why I would give the state legislature (Dem or Republican) this type of blank check.
Bummer dude. I don't think you really get what its about. Sounds like you got sucked into the "sound-bite" crowd. :nonono2:Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
Blank check? It is hardly a blank check it is well bounded and only a margianl increase.
well bounded in relation to previous legislation? I have read the proposed bill a couple times and there doesn't seem to be any definitive spending limits(what I like about TABOR) or where exactly the money will go. With this legislature I cannot justify giving them more money. These are people that come out in defense of people like Ward Churchill, spend my tax dollars devising some arcane keg tracking system, just go look here http://www.taxincrease.org/files/IP_8_2005_d.pdf . I realize that all governments will have pork items. It just seems that CO has fewer because of TABOR. I'd like to keep it that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by lemon boy
I did vote for Ref. 1A in Summit County to help fund more early stage development in children. It is being paid for via mill levy.
Mr.G- It would only allow them to keep the tabor surpluses :shrug: That's hardly carte blanche to go on a wild spending spree. No rate increase nothing. I hardly think that in the next 5 years Colorado is going to have an extra 5 trillion dollars in TABOR surplus.
Whatever, what's done is done.
Mr. G and those voting No: Sounds like your dissapointed in the state legislature so you penalize the schools and hospitals? :nonono2: :nonono2:
I'm saying the schools already do and will face huge budget cuts (I know this I'm a teacher)
The hospitals already do and will face huge budget cuts (I know this my mother is the manager of the N.I.C.U at Children Hospital)
I can't say much for CDOT, but I'm guessing they will have to make huge budget cuts as well, that will surely affect us.
Bummer.
I read that whole document and other than corporate wellfare it was just grasping at straws.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
I was initally against C&D but after listening to the pros and cons on CPR and reading more I'm leaning towards it.
CAIC is also hoping for ref C to pass. Funding over there is going to be pretty tight otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kya
Damn, Ifn hacksaw'd said that two weeks ago I bet there'd be an extra three or four votes for. :(
I realize that. However, I would have voted for this C if they would have put a limit on the amount to be spent. There is no way they get unlimited blue sky for the next five years and then just revert back to TABOR.Quote:
Originally Posted by lemon boy
kya, I have nothing against teachers. I do have almost no confidence this legislature would get you and your fellow teachers the money in an effective manner.
That's cool, I hear your concerns. Just that its gonna suck for schools real bad if this thing goes down.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
That's why I say Vote Yes C & D.
Then V.O.R.D. Vote Out Republicans and Democrats.
Both have passed!
You might want to check the results again
Not surprising, a bit disappointing but not particularily surprising either. Look for a host of project specific bonds next go round.