Motorists shafted by Dems' tax trick

Beginning July 1, Colorado drivers will pay higher taxes--we're told to call them "fees"--on every vehicle every year when we renew our license plates. The increase of $29 to $51 per vehicle is projected to generate $250 million annually to repair unsafe roads and bridges, Gov. Bill Ritter said when he signed the "fee" hike into law.

All this occurs under the guise of economic stimulus as Colorado Democrats learn from their Washington counterparts to strike quickly while the economy is on the ropes and the public is too worried about their own finances to pay attention to statehouse shenanigans.

To be fair, transportation funding from Colorado's fuel tax has been stagnant in recent years because it's calculated on a per-gallon, rather than a per-cent, basis. Higher fuel prices and better fuel efficiency keep total fuel consumption relatively flat. For the last 10 years, the state's share of fuel tax receipts never fell below $379 million but never grew above $430 million.

When the economy is booming, roads and bridges receive a tremendous bonus from the general fund ‹ income and sales taxes ‹ which nearly matched the fuel tax, adding $1.3 billion to the transportation budget from 2005 to 2007.

However, just hours after Gov. Ritter signed the vehicle fee hike into law, every Democrat in the state senate voted to sever this general fund lifeline to transportation.

If it sounds like Democrats are talking out of both sides of their mouths, it's because they are - at least, so far. One day, they say our roads and bridges are unsafe and demand more money from Colorado drivers. The next day, they take a hatchet to transportation funding.

Any sane person can be excused for wondering what they're drinking or smoking at the state capitol.

Sadly this is nothing new. Dating back to former Gov. Roy Romer, Democrats' favorite tactic has been to grow social welfare spending and leave transportation with scraps. Romer's approach was to tell voters that if they wanted more money for transportation, they should vote for higher taxes.

In 1997, Romer and Republicans reached a compromise that guaranteed the aforementioned bonus source of highway funding and limited general fund spending increases to no more than six percent per year.

Republican Gov. Bill Owens staunchly defended that compromise and worked out a similar agreement with Democrats in 2002.

Now that Democrats hold a monopoly at the state capitol, they seem intent upon smashing those agreements in order to boost social welfare spending.

Senate Bill 228 would eviscerate the limit on general fund spending, end a vital source of transportation funding, and allow rapid expansion of entitlements. Even Gov. Romer didn't suggest repealing this limit without the required public vote, but today's Democrats are above consulting lowly taxpayers.

The bill's sponsor, Sen. John Morse, nearly stepped in it recently when, reacting to opposition from Denver chamber of commerce, he declared, "Let's let the people's elected representatives decide that - not the chamber."

Better yet, Sen. Morse, let's let the people decide for themselves, as the constitution ­ which you pledged to uphold ­ requires.

Ironically, proponents suggest that eliminating a spending limit to facilitate more spending on social welfare will help Colorado "get out of a recession."

That's an argument with rife with economic illiteracy. If all spending limits disappeared tomorrow, state government still couldn't spend an extra dime. In a recession, it's the economy that limits spending. Moreover, Colorado's government doesn't fund the economy; the economy funds government.

If Democrats want to expand social welfare spending, they should be honest about it. If they believe transportation needs more money, they should first protect every existing resource. And if they want to repeal state spending limits, they should follow the constitution by asking the voters.

Mark Hillman served as senate majority leader and state treasurer. To readmore or comment, go to www.MarkHillman.com

'Rest of story' suffers with Rocky gone

Just in the first week since the Rocky shut down, think about the state and local stories that were covered less robustly in the absence of a competing metro daily. Three for starters would be: ** Senate Dems seek to bust the 6% constitutional spending limit.

** Senate Dems endorse college subsidies for illegal aliens.

** CU students welcome plagiarist Ward Churchill and terrorist Bill Ayers.

Nothing against the solid reporting and commentary we've read in the Denver Post about these events, but they contain so many deeper levels and cross-currents that no single newspaper can possibly do them justice.

There's a reason people have two eyes and ears; a reason we say two heads are better than one; a reason Scripture says wisdom needs many counselors.

At 90, Paul Harvey, the founding father of opinion radio, was going to leave us one of these days. But how fitting that we lost him on the same weekend when Coloradans lost some of our access to "the rest of the story" with the Rocky's demise.

Spenders aim to bust the 6%

Emboldened that the state supreme court still hasn't ruled on Gov. Bill Ritter's plainly unconstitutional property tax hike, tax-and-spenders at the State Capitol are drawing up their game plan for another end-run around voters. If they can get away with hiking property taxes by claiming it's not a tax increase, then Democrats are increasingly confident they can again bypass voters and the state constitution by claiming that a spending limit is something else.

The Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) in the state constitution famously mandates that taxes cannot be increased without voter approval. However, voters also get the final word on weakening any limits on "revenue, spending and debt."

In 2005, Referendum C suspended much of TABOR for five years and modified other portions indefinitely. However, Ref C left intact a provision that limits annual increases in general fund spending to six percent and devotes anything over that amount to roads and bridges.

Now Democrats - and one Republican - want to eviscerate that limit, too, although their justification and methods are dubious.

Even Gov. Ritter's budget office - known for its dreamily-optimistic projections - doesn't expect general fund growth to bump against the limit in the next four years.

Why then are liberals chafing at a limit that won't actually impede them anytime soon? For the same reason their counterparts in Washington turned an "economic stimulus" bill into a big-government spending binge.

"You never want a crisis to go to waste," reminds Rahm Emanuel, chief of staff to President Obama.

Taxpayers striving to keep their own financial boat afloat don't have time to worry about the minutiae of government formulas, so Democrats shamelessly use today's economic distress to dismantle anything that might slow state spending when the economy rebounds.

Spendaholics are all atwitter. "We've got to do something!" more often conceals an agenda of opportunism than of necessity.

"We don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem," complain activists at the liberal Colorado Center on Law and Policy. Translation: "Government can't spend enough because taxes aren't high enough."

No wonder they don't trust the voters.

Next, Jean Dubofsky, a former supreme court justice with a crafty legal mind and a penchant for legislating from the bench, proffered a clever legal strategy.

Dubofsky is no neutral observer. She's a board member of the Colorado ACLU and two liberal think tanks that despise TABOR. Her opinion suggests that the six percent limit really isn't a limit and can, therefore, be changed without voter approval.

Two Democrat legislators are dutifully parroting that message.

Denver Rep. Mark Ferrandino claims the six percent limit "doesn't actually limit the amount of money we're spending." Colorado Springs Sen. John Morse calls the six percent limit "an allocation strategy. TABOR is silent on allocation strategies."

Past legislatures and former governors from both parties have taken TABOR at its word when it plainly says: "Other limits on . . . revenue, spending and debt may be weakened only by future voter approval." Further, the constitution requires that TABOR's "preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government.."

Although a spending limit of six percent is indeed arbitrary, it is hardly draconian. Yes, it could cause major difficulty in an age of hyper-inflation, but for eight of the past 10 years, six percent was more than the combined growth of inflation and population. Why then do liberals find it so oppressive?

Because expanding entitlement spending is the holy grail of the Left. More people who depend on government means more votes for the party that promises bigger government. Expanding social welfare is difficult when anything over six percent must go to roads and bridges.

It's ironic that liberals who liken government spending to "investment" now prefer to shift money away from lasting infrastructure and into social programs where more spending always begets demand for more spending.

If Gov. Ritter and Democrat legislators aren't willing to trust voters with these decisions, as the constitution requires, why then should voters trust them with their taxes?

RMN, RIP: What a loss

E. W. Scripps has announced that Friday will be the last day of publication for the Rocky Mountain News. This is a sad day for Denver and Colorado, and given the state's pivotal position in nationalpolitics, it's not too good for the country, either.

The Rocky always had longer articles, better coverage, and sharper commentary than its surviving rival, the Denver Post. But a tabloid format and a series of poor marketing and business decisions left it unable to compete in the shrinking market for dead-tree-based news.

The Rocky was also one of the main reasons that the more liberal Post didn't become the utterly irresponsible caricature of a newspaper that the Star-Tribune and the Los Angeles Times have turned into. With the Rocky now gone, there will be less pressure on the Post to be a responsible outlet, rather than a mouthpiece for the Democratic party and its affiliates.

In past times, the Post would have picked up the important features and much of the news staff of the Rocky. However, the Post, is facing financial problems of its own, laying off some editorial and management staff, and it's unclear how long it will continue to function, even without direct competition.

It's tempting to say that bloggers and other alternative media can step into the breach, and it may well be that a number of the reporters from the Rocky will try to develop their own sites for a living. And indeed, I'm sure we'll be able to pick up some of the slack.

But there's nothing like being on payroll to have the time to write and develop sources and stories. The Denver Press Club still has a bias against those who don't have major media organizations behind them, which limits credentialing and access to information and newsmakers. There's no question this is a serious loss for the area.

Paranoid liberals at Metro State

Tonight on Backbone Radio, campus editor Sean Doherty related the hilarious, but also deeply paranoid, fears of a Metro State staffer who voiced the following chain of spontaneous word associations in regard to a then-proposed (and since launched) campus newspaper called The Constitutional Reporter. "Constitutional... Klan... Republican... hateful... illegal... Nazi... swastika"

Yes, those are direct quotes. This really happened. Doherty's full notes of the phone conversations are given below.

STATEMENT BY SEAN DOHERTY Senior Political Science Major Metropolitan State College of Denver

Here are the minutes from my phone conversation with a representative of Metro State's administration.

Setting: I had previously asked for permission to put my paper on campus. They agreed. When I asked for written permission, the "gatekeeper" said he would get the permission slip to the right people and contact me. So, on the morning of 2/4/09 at 10:23am, I got the following call (I wrote down the following notes immediately after the conversation)

The gentleman on the phone had spoken with the appropriate people in admin who had him tell me the following:

"This is not a reflection on you as an individual but..." (an important distinction. What he is saying is that they don't know who I am but what concerns them is what they do know: the title of my newspaper: The Constitutional Reporter. They have no knowledge of anything except for the title of the paper)

He then goes on to say that the title Constitutional is concerning since the word is sometimes associated with radicals. He goes into rambling mode and lists a few other concerns such as "how do we know you're not part of the Klan?" He asked specifically if this was a Republican newspaper.

I responded that it was nonpartisan.

He then said that they don't want anything that could be considered hateful or illegal on the campus.

Then, he tried to justify their refusal to sign with this number: "we are for freedom of speech, freedom of speech..." and he explained that they understood this was a state institution and state property but that they wanted to "see an outline of the paper, you know, a business plan, to know what its about because they have to be careful before they give approval for something to be placed on campus.

I objected and said they did not need and could not request a business plan- I'm not even associated with the school other than being a student!

He said that was right but they would still need an outline of some sort.

I knew he wasn't the guy responsible for these concerns; he was just speaking for some administrators behind closed doors. I asked if I could meet with these people and address their concerns specifically so they may see that I am a good guy and certainly not a radical Klan member!

He said that they're busy folks (to which I responded that I am too) and he said they're always in meetings. So I asked him, "what about today at 3:30pm? Are they busy today at that time?" He could not give me an answer one way or the other and brushed off the question. He just told me to bring in an outline and we'd go from there. According to him, if I brought in an outline, then he could schedule a meeting with the administrators who could meet me and sign off giving our paper documented approval.

A day later 2/5/09 and around 11:30am, we have another phone conversation:

He reaffirmed that they were concerned and instead of just a Klan reference, he used the whole term in question: Ku Klux Klan. In addition, he added a new one to the list of concerns: that they did not want a Nazi paper on campus. "they did not want to pick up our paper and see a swastika on the cover."

I questioned him about what could be radical about the term Constitutional. To his credit, he said that the Constitutional Convention and other key events and figures in history were not radical (although, technically, in a way they were radical for that time) but he did not state any specific concerns or examples for what could be radical about the word Constitutional in a modern day context.

I asked him to submit his request to me in writing before I submit any outline in writing to them. I said something to the effect of "if the admin sees fit to request a written outline from me, I want a written outline of what their concerns are"

Nothing. He just told me to do an outline. I then said, basically, "well what if I did a news story about this? Would you want to put it in writing so nothing is mis-quoted?" He answered, "Absolutely not."

www.theconstitutionalreporter.com

To contact Sean Doherty 303.263.2281 kairoshappens@gmail.com