Initiatives do taxpayers few favors

Contrary to popular belief, the citizen initiative process is not inherently - or even incidentally - conservative. Like government, the initiative is merely a reflection of the attitudes and principles of the people. Today, the people are not conservative - skeptical, irascible or cynical, perhaps, but not conservative. This year's ballot issues in Colorado remind one of Frederic Bastiat's warning: "Government is the great fiction through which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else."

Long ago when the populace did not expect much from government, government's ineptitude caused fewer problems. Now, as more people expect government to do more, government's "doing" constantly causes newer, bigger problems to replace the older, smaller ones it set out to solve.

One day, people will surely recognize that, as P.J. O'Rourke says, "giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

Then, perhaps, they will finally rise up and say to their elected officials - of both parties: "I accept that we will always have problems and inequality, with or without government, but because you take my hard-earned money and squander it on bridges to nowhere and feckless financial bailouts, I prefer to keep my paycheck and cut yours."

Today, voters are more likely to use the initiative process to constrain and burden each other than to limit government.

In Colorado, the last initiative that clearly protected the rights of the people and constrained government was the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, passed in 1992. Like it or not, TABOR undeniably shifted power to the people by giving them a right to vote on tax increases and away from government by constraining its ability to spend.

In the 16 years since, most enacted initiatives have made government bigger, increased the burden on taxpayers, and reduced the freedoms of the people.

Two initiatives on this year's ballot, Amendments 51 and 58, would increase state government spending by more than $500 million a year and lock in existing government spending on another $500 million.

Amendment 51 would increase the state sales tax to provide a new guaranteed entitlement at taxpayer expense for the developmentally disabled. Moreover, it would require that state government spend these new funds, plus all money currently budgeted for the developmentally disabled, on these programs and nothing else in the future.

A few years back we were told that state government's budget crisis was the product of conflicting inflexible spending mandates. Apparently, advocates of Amendment 51 weren't paying attention, because this is another inflexible spending mandate.

Perhaps more should be spent on programs for the developmentally disabled. If so, it should be up to the legislature to prioritize and reduce spending on less worthwhile programs.

Next, there's Amendment 58 which would increase energy taxes by $321 million a year to pay, mostly, for Gov. Ritter's new college scholarship program. While this tax will be collected by oil and gas companies, anyone who understands Economics 101 knows that corporations have no choice but to pass along new taxes to consumers.

Finally, there's Referendum O which offers a glimmer of hope for fewer such shenanigans in the future. Colorado's constitution looks more like a phone book than a simple statement of principle. Ref O increases the amount of signatures needed for a constitutional amendment and requires those signatures to come from all seven congressional districts.

To encourage amendments to statutes instead, Ref O would allow more time to collect signatures and prohibit the legislature from amending citizen initiatives for five years, except with a two-thirds vote.

Though the initiative process provides a necessary check on recalcitrant government, it is all too susceptible to those who simply want more from government but want someone else to pay for it.

Editor's Note: Referendum O is something on which reasonable people can differ. Our voter guide on this site recommends a no vote, contrary to Sen. Hillman's recommendation above. My comments on Head On TV in opposition to Ref O are here.

Bottom line: No on 59

(Source: StrikeABetterBalance.com) Amendment 59 isn't about education funding, it's an attack on TABOR. The biggest tax increase in Colorado history is likely to result. Voters need to know this. Organizations that want more taxes are outspending taxpayer advocates by 200-to-1. The only hope is getting the word out through you. Please let your friends, family and colleagues know that you oppose Amendment 59 and ask them to vote against it. The reasons are simple:

** Citizens should not throw away the controls that they put on government.

** Citizens should make politicians come to them with specific proposals, not just give politicians a blank check.

** Citizens need the $600 to $800 per family in TABOR refunds that were returned each year when there were surplus tax collections, and which will likely resume in the next decade.

** Amendment 59 is not designed to save money for a real rainy day fund, nor will it solve a constitutional knot.

** Here are more specifics:

59 is unreasonable

Don’t be fooled by the sales job that says this is about education funding. It’s much, much bigger than that!

59 asks the taxpayers to forfeit all future TABOR tax refunds — forever. There is no way to estimate how much tax money this will amount to. It is not reasonable to ask the voters to sign a blank check made out to the state.

The people backing this measure should be honest and clear about the issue, instead of trying to distract you from hearing the real debate about its full impact.

59 is not fair

Every family lives on a budget. Businesses, charities and churches must also. The constitutional constraint that placed an upper limit on government revenues and spending was a good idea. It would not be fair for the state government to be the only organization without a budget constraint.

It’s good that we vote on tax rates, but that citizen’s right is very weak without a budget limit to protect us.

59 looks out for government, not you

It costs a lot to fill up at the gas pump these days. Grocery and home energy prices are climbing. A tax hike is a pay cut and families can’t afford to be burdened with a higher cost of government.

59 is premature

Referendum C is just over half done. It still has another two years to go. Forecasters don’t think that we will get any surplus returned until two years after Ref C ends. Do you know what the economy will look like in five or six years? The state government?

The people who supported Ref C said that you would have to give up $3.7 Billion, but now we know it will be over $6 Billion. With this much new tax revenue pouring into state coffers on top of the Amendment 23 education increases, it's unwise to claim that education needs more now.

59 is unnecessary

Ref C increased the government’s tax base. On a per capita basis, it will cost a family of four an additional $1,100 or more, every year forever-- almost twice what we were told it would be.

The proponents say 59 creates a savings account for education. But any meaningful “rainy day fund” needs to discuss all the needs of the state, including transportation and other programs.

Proponents claim 59 is needed to untangle a "fiscal knot" in the state constitution created by Amendment 23. But the increases mandated by 23 will be completed next year.

BOTTOM LINE: NO ON 59

For more information contact Strike a Better Balance.

Call Penn Pfiffner at 303-233-7731 or Aimee Rathburn at 303-795-1772

Or visit www.StrikeABetterBalance.com

Schools money-hungry & thin-skinned

Editor: Conservative gadfly Tom Graham of Arvada scored a media coup with his satirical "why vote yes" entry in the Jefferson County election mailer giving arguments for and against a nearly $1 billion education proposal. The kerfuffle was big news in the Denver Post this week, and the Rocky did a similar story. Here is Graham's report on the aftermath. ================================

GULLIVER AMONG THE EDUCRATS By Tom Graham

The campaign supporting 3A and 3B, the big tax and bond package, issued a press release, condemning me for submitting a “pro” statement for the election notice. I was advised that Citizens for Jeffco Schools had already submitted a statement and mine wasn’t needed.

The district feels that the election notice process is their property, not a legal public right, unless someone mirrors their agenda. Districts use strategies such as having staff write both the pro and con sides of an issue. Let someone disagree and a storm breaks loose. Now there’s a movement to change the election notice law to hide their true agenda. I did not imply that I was speaking for the district, and my statements are factual, except for those that are opinion.

The district superintendent stated to the Denver Post, “We did edit out the personal attacks on some of our citizens.” These were called “offensive” in their press release. Evidently they weren’t offensive enough to keep the district from placing them in the Post, with ten times as many readers. These two horrible “attacks,” were a compliment, and a reference to an Obama slogan.

I’ve received 13 media contacts and a number of compliments, some from political leaders, plus one threat. Speaking of attacks, a friend who had no knowledge of the notice, was attacked in a flood of e-mails for merely being with me when I submitted it.

The notice is a forum available to the fixed income folks to oppose repeated tax increases. They have no money for a campaign. One of the district’s political action committees, Citizens for Jeffco Schools, spent hundreds of thousands, contributed by 294 donors. Thirteen donors contributed $5,000 or more each, with three giving a total of $95,000.

These ballots are designed to convince uninformed voters to approve a self-serving agenda. Note the overblown non-teaching segment of their budget, dismal student performance, and teacher union domination. 3A asks for a mill levy override almost double that of the next highest in the state. 3B is slightly less than the state’s highest, Douglas County’s.

A debt service of $754 million, plus a 4.4 mill rate increase, adds up to an additional $103 million looting of the public pocketbook next year, increasing each year, with no sunset provision. Their press release states, “…many Jeffco seniors will actually see a reduction in their school property tax even if 3A passes because of the Homestead Exemption.” This falsely implies a connection between the tax and the exemption.

They state, “A yes vote on 3A/3B will keep our property values strong….” As anyone involved in real estate knows, the opposite is true. Perpetual tax increases price properties and buyers out of the market. Where’s the apology for these misrepresentations?

These ballots are so preposterous that they lend themselves to satire. If anyone over at the district was sophisticated enough to have read Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” they might have been amused, rather than so uptight.

Email Tom Graham at coloradothomas@aol.com.

Defeat Amendment 59 or lose TABOR

(Source: National Taxpayers Union) Colorado voters made history in 1992 when they enacted TABOR, the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, the strongest set of taxpayer protections in the country. In guaranteeing refunds of overcollection of taxes, mandating spending restrictions, and giving Coloradans the ability to vote on all tax increases, TABOR has been instrumental in the state's booming economy. Unfortunately, over the past 16 years, rent seekers have sought to weaken these provisions through the passage of Amendment 23 and Referendum C, which allowed a increased rate of government spending growth. They're at it again, with TABOR-killing Amendment 59 on the ballot in November.

Supported by the National Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers Against Amendment 59 is leading the fight against this destructive initiative.

Visit the Web site at www.noto59.org to join the pro-taxpayer fight. There you will find more information on Amendment 59, including a detailed description of its consequences, links to research and media, and opportunities for you to take action against its big-government proponents.

Amendment 59, being sold as the Savings Account for Education (SAFE) plan, constitutes a blank check for legislators in Denver. It would gut TABOR, allowing for the same rampant spending that led to the stagnation of Colorado's economy in the 1980s. Roughly half of Colorado's general fund will be exempt from TABOR's spending restrictions under Amendment 59.

What's more, the claim that the increase in revenue and spending capacity will be spent solely on education is disingenuous and misleading. As you'll see on www.noto59.org, the list of pro-59 big-money donors includes special interests from the health lobby to trial lawyers. It's time for the taxpayers of Colorado to turn out the vote in November and work to continue the economic progress the state has enjoyed under TABOR.

Previous efforts to weaken TABOR have successfully expanded the role of government in Colorado. Enough is enough. Visit www.noto59.org and find out how you can take action. This is the most important ballot fight in the country this election cycle. Don't be left on the sidelines.

For more information on Taxpayers Against Amendment 59's fight, contact NTU State Government Affairs Manager Josh Culling at jculling@ntu.org or 703-299-8680.

No on 3A & 3B, Creek & Jeffco

Editor: Suppose the education lobby asked to put a tollbooth at your front door where they would charge you 50 cents every day except Sunday, just to leave home. You'd want to know that before saying yes or no, wouldn't you? Well, that's the tariff on an average homeowner in Cherry Creek Schools if the twin tax and bond measures on this year's ballot are approved, though you'd have no idea of it from the fancy mailers going out, and you'd get only half the truth from supporters' press releases.

So we asked a district parent and experienced financial analyst, appearing here as Number Cruncher, to run the figures for several different housing sizes. Here's his report:

============================

Caveat Voter: 3A and 3B are Expensive!

The Cherry Creek Schools Board of Education and the citizens asking voters to vote for 3A and 3B have only discussed the cost of 3B, but have not disclosed or discussed the annual cost of 3A and the total annual cost of both measures to our District’s taxpayers.

Measure 3A, the $18,000,000 annual operating override costs an additional 3.964 mills per year and Measure 3B (the $203,500,000 bond question) costs an additional 2.172 mills per year. The total tax increase will be 5.136 mills per year. Wow!

Below you can see what the annual property tax increase will be for you depending upon the assessable value of your home.

The cost is high in these strained economic times. I am very displeased at the district’s failure to inform taxpayers of the cost, and I encourage people to take this into account when voting on these measures.

Assessable......3AAdditional......3BAdditional......Total Additional Home Value.....Annual Cost.......Annual Cost......Annual Property Tax

$250,000........$79..................$43.................$142

$336,000........$106.................$58.................$164 = Average Home

$500,000........$158.................$86.................$244

$750,000........$237.................$130...............$367

$1,000,000......$316.................$173..............$489

$1,500,000......$473.................$259..............$732

(Some differences due to rounding)

============================

Editor: Jefferson County Schools have their own 3A and 3B, seeking to raise almost twice as much money as Cherry Creek, and taxpayers should also look skeptically on those big tax increases in the current economic climate. Our friend Tom Graham has Jeffco and the daily papers in a tizzy with his wicked satire on "reasons to vote yes" in that election.

Meanwhile back in Cherry Creek, The Villager, principal newspaper serving the area, carried in its 10/2/08 edition an article and a letter from the Board of Education, both discussing ballot measures 3A and 3B. for Cherry Creek Schools. (Not available on their website at VillagerPublishing.com.)

The article discussed the cost of the bond issue (3B) for the average priced home, but did not mention the annual cost of the $18,000,000 override (3A) to the average homeowner. The school board's letter suggested the combined cost of the two measures is only $58 per year, which is inconsistent with the information in the article and with the mill levy increase required to generate an additional $18 million annually.

The article said the assessable taxable value for the average home (presumably including single family homes, condominiums and townhomes) is $336,620. As the above table by Number Cruncher shows, the combined added cost of 3A and 3B for a taxpayer owning an average priced home of $336,000 will be about $164 per year.

Our imaginary tollbooth figure is calculated by taking a year of 365 days, subtracting 52 Sundays, and dividing the remaining 313 days into that $164 annual tax increase, for a daily charge of just over 53 cents.