TABOR: Some Intesting Facts Concerning Wisconsinites
We hear a lot of noise about TABOR - Taypayers Bill of Rights. It is a phrase that won't be going away. It's a popular discussion point OnTheBorderLine. In the interest in finding out what it stands for and what are the ramifications of it, I've been doing Google searching. Two sources of information with a variety of opinions on TABOR are the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News. Using the search engines of these to daily, Denver newspapers will provide you with imformation on TABOR and groups for and against it. This fall, Colorado voters will be voting on Referendum's C and D to fix the problems caused by the previous passage of TABOR.
The Denver Post recently ran a two-part series called the Truth About TABOR. Here are links to the articles: Part 1 and Part 2 Each of the article links have links to groups pro and con to TABOR and/or Ref C & D. It's pretty obvious that the pro-TABOR/anti-Ref C & D groups are much better organized and better funded. The following letter in yesterday's Denver Post sheds some light on why:
"The Truth About TABOR"
I've found it useful to compare supporters and opponents to various issues when making my own decisions. I understand that members of both major political parties support the passage of Referendums C and D, which will begin to undo the damage caused by the so-called Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. TABOR severely curtailed the ability of state government to respond to Colorado's changing needs. That's why support for education, transportation and other social services that serve all the people of Colorado have been slashed. TABOR was passed with the help of a massive infusion of funds from out-of-state conservative anti-tax organizations.
They're back. Opposition to C and D has been concentrated - and paid for - by the same conservative lobbying groups that have attempted to influence elections throughout the country. What is the "Club for Growth," and why is it spending so much money in Colorado when its backers don't live here?
Why don't more Coloradans understand that the "Independence Institute" is another corporate-sponsored propaganda mill whose only purpose is to spread conservative dogma?
I would urge all Coloradans to go online and look for the funding behind such lobbying fronts as the Club for Growth, the Claremont Institute, the Independence Institute, and many other conservative "think tanks."
When so many wealthy corporations and ultra-rich conservatives are against a movement to take control of our own government spending, you can be sure that it's a movement that will restore control of our government to we, the people.
Scott Mock, Boulder
---
One Power Point presentation concerning the city of Manitowoc has so good info on the impact of TABOR. It also has good data concerning overall Wisconsin statistics.
TABOR Power Point Link.
If you have any additional information or links concerning TABOR, please post them in the comments below. I will also a sample of letters concerning TABOR and Ref C and D from the Sunday, Sept. 19 Denver Post.
2 comments:
Below are a sample of TABOR-related letters published in the Sunday, Sept. 18 edition of the Denver Post.
…
The Post's series on the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights may be one of the most relevant newspaper reports to be printed this summer/fall. Regardless of the outcome of the vote this November on Referendums C and D, the result will have very significant effect on every Colorado citizen for many years to come. While the concept of the TABOR amendment - better citizen control of the state's expenditures - was needed and due in the spending atmosphere of Colorado in the late 1980s, the amendment as finally approved and interpreted had several serious flaws.
Opponents to Referendums C and D play on our emotional desire to pay absolutely minimum taxes. Understandable. However, their arguments contain serious flaws in logic. For example, they cite ever-increasing state spending. When one takes into account inflation and increased state population, the actual per capita expenditures have decreased in the last decade. They also tend to ignore, among other things, the increasing deterioration of our roads and schools.
Although I was born and raised in Colorado, if Referendums C and D do not pass, the destruction of our state's infrastructure will be so severe, I fear I may no longer care to live here.
Phil Olbert, Parker
...
Re: "Much at stake in election; Services in peril if measures lose," Sept. 4 Perspective article.
I have read several articles and fliers both for and against Referendums C and D, and I have to agree with those who say the state is in need of some extra revenues. Unfortunately, our legislature and governor chose not to be fiscally responsible to plug some leaks created by the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights and Amendment 23, but instead go for broke and ask the taxpayers for a full remodel with no guaranties as to whether they would use any of the increased revenue to plug the leaks.
My biggest problem with C and D is the lack of sound explanation for the selection of five years as the length of time to suspend TABOR refunds. The recession was two to three years. Most everything is about next year's financial problems.
Kip Bryan, Arvada
...
I voted for the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights in 1992 because I believed then - and still do - in participatory, grassroots democracy. I voted against Amendment 23 a few years ago because I thought it was a bad idea to tie the state into mandated increases in any particular area, be it education or anything else. At the time, I was also worried what effect Amendment 23 would have in the event of a recession. Indeed, we can see now how Amendment 23 has squeezed the state budget. But blaming Amendment 23 will not solve the budget crisis that looms over the state.
Our Democratic House and Senate and our Republican governor have crafted a solution to the mess we've put ourselves in. It may not be ideal, but it's all we've got and it is the duty of every responsible citizen to either support Referendum C or offer a realistic and timely alternative. And not one of those opposing Referendum C - not Grover Norquist, Jon Caldara or Douglas Bruce - has offered any realistic and measurable alternatives that will save us from drastic cuts in funding for higher education, highway construction and maintenance and prisons. The idea that we can save enough by "cutting waste" and eliminating unnecessary spending is pure wishful thinking. Every organization humans have ever devised - and ever will devise - has had some degree of waste, corruption and inefficiency. That's reality.
Michael Adams, Lafayette
...
Sure it's my money. But those preaching the politics of greed and selfishness turn me off. We have to balance limiting government and taking care of our community. We know the recession and modest recovery have meant serious cutbacks. It doesn't take a TABOR expert to recognize that without Referendums C and D, state investments will be stuck below pre-recession levels for years. We need to invest in order to grow and prosper. Economic growth dries up where there is inadequate health care, crumbling schools and deteriorating transportation.
We hear sensational stories of wasteful government spending. But add up the numbers: Eliminate all waste, become super-efficient, and we'd still need C and D to address our critical unmet needs.
Are we each willing to give up a small rebate so we can invest to secure the future for our family, community and state? Let's ignore the appeals to greed and selfishness and vote for our future. Vote "yes" on C and D.
Charles Kreiman, Centennial
...
Letter-writer Steven Wells writes, "No. 1 reason to vote for Referendums C and D: Louisiana. We are only a catastrophe away" (Sept. 11 To the Point). This is a reason not to support the referendums. No amount of money thrown at this problem could have solved it. It was bureaucratic bungling from the beginning. Government has yet to show responsibility, planning and accounting with taxpayer dollars. Only when the government decides to draft and implement actual programs instead of studying them ad nauseam, and to get rid of the layers of bureaucracy, will I consider giving the state more of my money.
As a widow with three children not receiving government assistance and looking at an income that has not increased with expenses that have increased (gas, food, electricity), I can only state that meeting my family budget needs is more important than that of the government (and I do a far better job at stretching the dollar than our government does). Why are the government's needs and budget more important than my family's? I am voting "no" on Referendums C and D.
Cheryl Redmond Doyle, Littleton
...
Poor university students are paying higher costs for their education to supply the immediate needs of higher education because of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. TABOR constrains the increases in legitimate state funding by refunding surpluses to taxpayers. Redistribution of wealth of this nature is most definitely not fair.
Progressives should be outraged that higher education has been cut from $800 million to less than $600 million in annual funding.
Referendum C is a realistic, pragmatic, reasonable compromise. Moreover, it is disingenuous to say it is a tax hike. It is not. Rather, it allows the government to get outside of the faulty ratchet effect of TABOR. The compromise does not alter TABOR, it fixes its ratchet.
Wendell C. "Chuck" Fogland, Fort Collins
...
Until recently, I had been in favor of Referendums C and D. As more information has become available, however, I have become increasingly skeptical. What really changed my mind was something I saw recently at the Colorado State Fair. There was a booth there with signs on it saying something to the effect of: "Support C & D - Health care for all Coloradans."
My understanding of C and D has certainly been incomplete up to now, and obviously in error. I had thought that the primary intent of withholding tax refunds and borrowing money was to make needed improvements in infrastructure and educational facilities that had been delayed or prevented by the restrictions of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.
Apparently, with the prospect of a windfall from passage of C and D, there's already a feeding frenzy by people with every sort of social agenda.
There is only one thing that brings prosperity and benefit to all here in Colorado or anywhere else: a robust economy. The most basic things required to ensure that are an educated workforce and sound infrastructure. From a robust economy flows increased tax revenues to fund all government activities.
Considering that supporters of Referendums C and D are already seem determined to misspend the proceeds, throwing the money into the bottomless pit of social programs, it's obvious that voting in favor of Referendums C and D is a bad idea.
Dennis Chappell, Pueblo
...
I've found it useful to compare supporters and opponents to various issues when making my own decisions. I understand that members of both major political parties support the passage of Referendums C and D, which will begin to undo the damage caused by the so-called Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. TABOR severely curtailed the ability of state government to respond to Colorado's changing needs. That's why support for education, transportation and other social services that serve all the people of Colorado have been slashed. TABOR was passed with the help of a massive infusion of funds from out-of-state conservative anti-tax organizations.
They're back. Opposition to C and D has been concentrated - and paid for - by the same conservative lobbying groups that have attempted to influence elections throughout the country. What is the "Club for Growth," and why is it spending so much money in Colorado when its backers don't live here?
Why don't more Coloradans understand that the "Independence Institute" is another corporate-sponsored propaganda mill whose only purpose is to spread conservative dogma?
I would urge all Coloradans to go online and look for the funding behind such lobbying fronts as the Club for Growth, the Claremont Institute, the Independence Institute, and many other conservative "think tanks."
When so many wealthy corporations and ultra-rich conservatives are against a movement to take control of our own government spending, you can be sure that it's a movement that will restore control of our government to we, the people.
Scott Mock, Boulder
TABOR in Colorado: Debaters tangle over Refs C, D
Gubernatorial hopeful attacks, Rep. Buescher defends ballot issues
By Ellen Miller, Special to the Rocky Mountain News
September 20, 2005
GRAND JUNCTION - Republican gubernatorial hopeful Marc Holtzman and Democratic state Rep. Bernie Buescher traded statistics and zingers Monday evening in a debate about Referendums C and D.
Holtzman told the audience of about 250 at Mesa State College that he opposes both proposed budget fixes, saying the state's problems can be solved by selling state buildings and future tobacco settlement money, and by "cutting a bloated bureaucracy and looking outside the box."
Advertisement
He referred at least a half-dozen times to his stint as Gov. Bill Owens' chief of the Office of Information Technology and talked about how better leadership would make Colorado a "technology hub, one of the top five in the world, and it has nothing to do with passage of Referendums C and D."
Buescher, of Grand Junction, who supports the two measures on November's ballot, said budget cuts of more than $400 million will be necessary this coming year if voters don't allow the state to retain five years' worth of TABOR refunds.
Holtzman contended the estimated $3.7 billion in TABOR-surplus funds over the five years, coupled with new billions in borrowed money to fix roads and school buildings, amount to a tax increase of $3,200 per family.
Not true, said Buescher, citing Legislative Council estimates that the total would be just over $500 per family over five years.
Buescher also challenged Holtzman on his performance as head of the Office of Information Technology: "Aren't you the one who brought us the new CBMS computer, a system that doesn't work?"
That brought an angry denial from Holtzman, who said other state agencies, not his, were responsible for the troubled Colorado Benefits Management System.
Buescher, who serves on the Legislature's Joint Budget Committee, said more than 80 percent of the state's budget is made up of K-12 education, Medicaid, judicial, corrections and human services - areas that are growing eight percent per year.
"We've already seen $1 billion of cuts in the other 20 percent," Buescher said.
"Higher education has been cut from $900 million to just over $500 million, and the result is higher tuition."
When the topic turned to campaign ads running mainly on Colorado television stations, Buescher accused Ref C and D opponents of "talking of pork and pigs," while Holtzman claimed supporters have a "liberal philosophy of tax and spend."
Holtzman also accused Ref C supporters of using "scare tactics that prisoners will be let out."
One of the student panelists in the debate, sponsored by the Mesa State Criterion, the campus newspaper, asked about increases in tuition and how further hikes might be prevented.
"Pass C and D," was Buescher's answer.
Securitize the tobacco settlement and state buildings, "like Great Britain did," Holtzman said.
Then he repeated that Colorado "needs to be looking outside the box."
"I'm puzzled," Buescher responded. "Is it magic?"
Afterward, state Sen. Ron Teck, R-Grand Junction, a former JBC member and supporter of C and D, said "Bernie (Buescher) struggled a bit, but Marc (Holtzman) is absolutely clueless about how the state budget works."
"It's easy to talk about cuts and efficiencies, but we cut $1 billion," Teck said.
"Departments have squeezed and found efficiencies. You can securitize buildings and tobacco (if you can get it through the legislature - and they haven't) but you don't solve this problem. You just push it into the future."
Post a Comment