CUT scores JBC's Lambert at 100%

The Colorado Union of Taxpayers, a non-partisan group advocating for taxpayers, has released its 2009 CUT Ratings of the Legislature, announcing Taxpayer Champions and Guardians, those Legislators voting most often in favor of the taxpayer. Earning Senate Champions with scores of 97% were Republican Senators Dave Schultheis and Bill Cadman, Colorado Springs.

House Champion Representative Kent Lambert, Colorado Springs, scored 100%. Lambert was named by Minority Leader Mike May on Sunday to fill the Joint Budget Committee seat left vacant by Rep. Don Marostica's recent appoint to Gov. Ritter's cabinet.

Senator Kevin Lundberg, Berthoud, scored 91% ranking him Senate Guardian. House Guardians are Representatives Cory Gardner, Yuma, candidate for US Congress, and Jerry Sonnenberg, Sterling, with scores of 90%.

Nine Senators tied for big losers earning 3.13%, while Representative Su Ryden is the House loser at 0%. Governor Ritter scored 9%.

Another "F" for the Legislature. The Legislature continues to pass bills which re-distribute dollars to special interest groups, increase fees, raid cash funds, eliminate spending caps, and attack your liberty!

Says CUT President, Marty Neilson, "The Colorado budget crisis which we hear about at every turn, is a budget for 2009/2010 that is 2.6% higher than the prior year! What crisis? In an economic downturn when Colorado citizens must tighten their belts, government must be expected to do the same."

"TABOR, the taxpayers' bill of rights, continues to win support from Colorado voters and can be credited for protecting Colorado from the real budget woes being exprienced in California."

The Colorado Union of Taxpayers (CUT) is a non-partisan taxpayer activist group whose mission is to help educate the public as to the dangers of excessive taxation, regulation, and government spending, thereby encouraging the reduction of taxes, regulations, and government spending.

Visit www.coloradotaxpayer.org for the full 2009 Ratings Report.

Clerks feel car tax backlash

If you’ve registered a vehicle lately, you may be suffering from mild sticker shock, but don’t blame the Clerk and Recorder’s Office. Editor's Note: The author is Arapahoe County Clerk & Recorder.

The Legislature passed—and Gov. Ritter signed into law—SB09-108 known as the FASTER measure. It was co-sponsored by Democrats, Sen. Dan Gibbs and Rep. Joe Rice.

It adds about $32 a year to the average registration fee to pay for “Road and Bridge Safety Surcharges”—none dare call it a tax. But wait, there’s more! You used to be able to get by with a $10 late fee if you exceeded the 30 day grace period when renewing your registration. Now, it’s $25 a month, month after month, up to a maximum $100. Got an old boat trailer you take out once or twice a year? Or a hauler you run to the dump with once in awhile. You’d better send that registration card in on time, or you may end up paying more than the vehicle’s worth to re-register if you are late.

You say, “Thirty-two dollars here, and twenty-five dollars there doesn’t sound like a lot of money?” But here are the numbers: Arapahoe County collected $340,000 in late fees in the month of June (the county retained $67,720 and $272,425 was forwarded to the State). And we’re only one of 64 counties collecting these fees! The Governor’s Office has expressed its intention to address this legislation and its consequences in 2010, but in the mean time we must continue collecting the fees as directed by law, and anyone registering late will just have to pay.

Now some would question, “Why impose another regressive tax in the middle of the worst recession in 70 years?” Have the bridges escaped the Legislature’s attention until just this very minute? Have we, then, been driving on unsafe roadways all along? Will the fees sunset or be eliminated after the bridges and roads are repaired? Don’t bet on it. And are these new fees really taxes that should have been voted up or down by the taxpayers? And finally, what about the windfall federal stimulus money that Colorado has also received for roads?

These are all good questions. However, please “don’t shoot the messenger”. The motor vehicle clerks at the front counters in every county clerk’s office in the state have had to explain these fee increases to customers. As agents of the state, they have had to endure irate drivers who take out their frustrations on them. The Denver Post’s recent editorial stated that threats made by unhappy customers in the DMV offices are unacceptable. I agree. Maybe it’s time to e-mail your senator and representative and ask them:

“Why this, why right now and why no vote by the taxpayers?”

California kicks the can (again)

You have to love the politicians in Sacramento -- maybe not as embarrassing as those in Congress but pretty darn close! As I've written previously, the state has been in a fiscal mess of its own making, issuing high-interest IOUs in lieu of cash. Its just the latest annual budget fiasco in a state that spends more than it takes in -- in part because it gets over half its tax base from a tiny percentage of its richest residents whose incomes don't stay steady. Add to that an annual "cost of living increase" baked into the state's huge employee and pension contracts (regardless of annual revenue) and you have the kind of deficit spending that government is so good at. Now news comes tonight that the state has -- at least according to the questionable standards of the  San Jose Mercury News -- made a Budget Breakthrough solves California's long fiscal nightmare. Only it hasn't "solved" anything -- other than the current fiscal problems. What it didn't do is come to any kind of structural or long-term solution:

The deal would include Democratic concessions of more than $14 billion in program cuts — hitting the poor, children, the elderly and disabled while avoiding outright elimination of the state's welfare-to-work CalWORKS program and the Healthy Families health insurance program for children.Though they failed to get permanent reductions in welfare programs, Schwarzenegger and Republican legislators were able to uphold their vow of no new taxes with a series of accounting shifts and an enforced "loan" of nearly $4 billion from local governments.

Those accounting tricks include accelerating income tax withholdings from residents' paychecks by 10 percent,effectively shifting millions of next year's revenues into this year's budget, and delaying state workers' June 30, 2010 paychecks by one day — and thus, into next fiscal year.

From the beginning, Democrats had little hope that they could win approval of tax increases, though they proposed popular measures such as $2 billion in taxes on oil companies, alcohol and tobacco sales and the closing of numerous corporate loopholes.

Although they represent barely more than one-third of either the Senate or the Assembly, Republicans have near-veto power over the proceedings, thanks to the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds vote for budgets and taxes.

Despite an ardent lobbying effort, cities and counties likely will take a major hit, with the state poised to borrow nearly $4 billion in revenues from property taxes and gas taxes. Critics say that will result in a devastating impact on local services.

Only in California, then, can you fail to make any headway on the longer-term issue of out-of-control spending and a shrinking revenue base while solving the problem with accounting gimmicks -- and call it a "success".  What the state has done is simply to kick the can down the road yet again, so that next year it will have to go through this all over again. Now that's what I call inspired political leadership!

What do you expect from a legislature that is bought and paid for by the unions and special interests, and a governor who talks tough but doesn't really have the stomach (or principle) for the kind of show down that might have really fixed this problem once and for all?  Creative accounting followed by a huge passing of the buck to local governments, which will now have to make the tough choices that Sacramento didn't have the courage to make.

And we now are going to give health care to Washington? Are we completely nuts?

Ritter learning too slowly on budget

Grappling with declining state revenues makes for some very unpleasant budget choices, as Gov. Bill Ritter and the Democrat majorities in the state legislature learned over the past 12 months. It's fair to criticize those choices, including the governor last year denying for several months that a problem existed. Yet anyone who has shouldered the responsibility of balancing a budget during a recession understands that learning from your own mistakes is inevitable.

Learning, however, is essential - both to sound fiscal policy and to political credibility. That's why it was astonishing to hear Ritter and leading Democrats dismiss the need for a special session of the legislature on the very day they acknowledged that the state will start the new fiscal year nearly $400 million in the hole.

Anticipating further economic deterioration, legislators gave Ritter the authority to "borrow" up to $500 million from next year's budget to pay this year's bills. Based on new projections by Legislative Council economists, about half that amount will be needed.

Moreover, legislative economists forecast tax revenues for the new budget year, beginning July 1, to be $135 million less than budgeted and $874 million short over three years. Those economists prudently expect the recession to continue into 2010 in Colorado and foresee possible recovery "at least a year after that."

That's the point at which this scenario takes on an incredible aura of déjà vu.

Economists in the Governor's Office of State Planning and Budgeting (OSPB) paint a much brighter picture, forecasting a recovery later this year. That outlook enables OSPB to expect an additional $1.3 billion to spend over the same three-year period.

Last September, Legislative Council sounded the alarm early enough for the governor and legislature to call a special session just three months into the fiscal year - ample time to revise the budget and mitigate the shockwaves to affected programs and participants.

Instead, the governor boldly proclaimed, "One of (the forecasts) is pretty significantly wrong," and according to the Denver Post, he "made it clear" that the error wasn't in the projections from his office. Days later when the Wall Street financial crisis struck, Ritter ordered a "hiring freeze" which, it turns out, wasn't nearly as frigid as advertised.

In December, with half of the fiscal year passed, Legislative Council pegged the budget shortfall at $631 million. Ritter's OSPB forecast a mere $70 million deficit. Two weeks later, OSPB admitted it had used "outdated information" and issued a new estimate of $230 million in red ink.

By the time the legislature convened in January, the remaining choices were severe cuts, exacerbated by months of inaction, or accounting gimmicks that postponed the day of reckoning and made balancing the 2009-10 budget even more difficult.

Choosing to procrastinate, legislators tried yet another dodge by attempting to extort $500 million which employers had paid into the state's fund for injured workers. Then they wiped away budget caps that restrain spending in good years - as if that would somehow create more money amid a withering economy.

Finally, after raiding trust funds, re-imposing a property tax on senior citizens, and accepting a federal bailout, they proclaimed the budget balanced.

With prescience, Republican leader Sen. Josh Penry observed, "This budget will be out of balance on June 20."

And so it is.

Incredibly, Governor Ritter and Democrat legislators seem headed for another year of budgetary brinksmanship, placing all their bets on a quick economic recovery.

For five years, Democrats have controlled the legislature and for three years the governor's mansion. Colorado taxpayers are right to expect that, after blundering through a year of budgetary mayhem, Ritter and Company will learn from the past and make prudent choices this time.

The Constitution is still the supreme law

"We must never forget it is a Constitution we are expounding"- Chief Justice John Marshall Last week I discussed the controversy over the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, focusing on the standard for evaluating nominees. This week I will examine our Constitution, the basis for that standard.

Ours is a limited constitution, one that delegates powers to a federal government and denies certain powers to state governments which they had exercised to the detriment of our prosperity. It is necessary to recall these circumstances which originally gave rise to the Constitution in order to appreciate its authority and legitimacy today.

The Constitution did not come into being in a vacuum. What we now call the founding generation could not be sure that their nation would survive. Partly because of a suspicion of distant centralized authority and partly because of an attachment to their states, many Americans were far from assenting to a national government.

The Continental Congress (1774-81) and the Articles of Confederation (1781-89) were based on the good faith of the colonies until Independence (1776), and then the states which formed in that fragile union. Nothing of consequence could be accomplished without the approval of nine of the 13 states, and no independent and powerful national legislative, executive or judicial branches existed.

The major domestic threat to our nation was faction. The comparatively small size of the states which rendered them responsive to the wishes of their constituents also made them vulnerable to domination by majority factions determined to assert their rights but loathe to accept their responsibilities.

In the midst of a depression caused by the end of wartime production and the lack of access to continental and foreign markets, many Americans were broke and in debt. The war had been financed by an almost worthless Continental currency, made worse by the states' issuance of paper money as well. As debtors and their allies soon outnumbered their creditors, state after state passed laws which, in one way or another, repudiated debts.

Such legislative acts constituted more than an attack on the property rights of one class of people by another, as wrong as that was. They also sent a signal to nations from whom we borrowed money to finance the War that those debts were susceptible to repudiation too. After all, the same factions that controlled state governments dominated the weak Confederation Congress.

Reverence for the Constitution and the laws was not necessarily in the hearts of many of our ancestors at their moment of great crisis. How to counter this? As vital to the defense of our rights as a strong legislative and executive branch are, the courts have more immediate impact than either on the lives of our people. It is there that contracts are upheld and private property protected.

Thus, the Constitution, in Article III, provides for a supreme court, and "inferior courts" established by Congress, the judges of which hold their offices "during good behavior." When combined with Article VI, which declares the Constitution, federal laws and treaties to be "the supreme law of the land," binding every state judge, we gained a truly national judicial branch. This was soon to be the chief restraint on the states which, at that time, were coining or printing money, and passing bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and "laws impairing the obligation of contracts."

It would be strange for the Constitution to permit at the federal level what had been curbed at the state level. Thus, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution forbids the federal government from taking private property for public use without just compensation.

But since New Deal days, Congress has passed laws which have encroached on rather than merely regulated our trade and commerce. In other words, it has been doing what the states long ago had been restrained from doing by our Constitution. And just as it once took state judges of uncommon fortitude to resist what James Madison denounced as the states’ "rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project," so now it requires federal judges of equal fortitude to resist that same impulse in Congress.

For as Alexander Hamilton put it so forcefully, we must turn for the defense of our property and other rights to "courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void."