Colorado Politics, News and Inside Information: Stop the Spending...On Fireworks?

Colorado Pols in the News

Colorado Pols Q&A's

_

« Weekend Open Thread | Main | Tipton Seems To Be The One »

Stop the Spending...On Fireworks?

The Rocky Mountain News has an editorial out today that criticizes The Independence Institute for the way in which it is going about trying to defeat Referendum C&D.

Yes, there is waste in state government. And yes, the Independence Institute's "Piglet Report" identifies several examples. But as an argument against two ballot measures that would increase state revenues, the report is almost laughable. And yet this is what the report purports to be.

Independence Institute officials were not entirely happy with the document, either, since they ended up pulling it from their Web site. And no wonder: Anyone reduced to citing the expenditures of $10,400 on a "Big Blue Bear film" and a few thousand dollars on fireworks at a state university as arguments against Referendums C and D is flirting with foolishness.

Do we think the Colorado Council on the Arts should subsidize a film chronicling the creation and installation of the Big Blue Bear at the Colorado Convention Center? Of course not. The expenditure is absurd. But it is also of virtually no relevance to the state's quest to locate enough money to prevent further squeezing of budgets for such critical needs as higher education and transportation.

Meanwhile, the relatively big ticket items that the Piglet Report does identify, such as reforming drug sentencing laws so that non-violent offenders are no longer incarcerated and abolishing the state's Consumer Protection and Antitrust Office involve dramatic and controversial changes in public policy. They may be worth pursuing, but the spending itself is hardly tantamount to wasteful pork.

If opponents of Referendums C and D want to be taken seriously, they need to stop pretending that Colorado government is awash in money, because it clearly is not. Reasonable people can argue that the state should be able to get by with the revenues it has, or that the ballot measures ask taxpayers to give up more of their future refunds than is necessary to fix the budget problem.

But to suggest that lawmakers have been cutting funding for higher education and transportation because they've been squandering cash on fireworks and stupid arts grants just doesn't pass the straight-face test.

Bob Ewegen of The Denver Post also got into the act today:

Texas Warrior King Dick Armey and his local acolytes have been attacking Referenda C and D, saying that the recovery package was unnecessary because the state budget had increased 7.7 percent this year, to what they claimed was $15 billion.

That isn't even close to the truth. Yes, the state administers about $14.6 billion in next year's budget. But less than half, $6.2 billion, is in the state's general fund, the key source for such vital programs as law enforcement and education. There is another $3.3 billion in federal funds that the state can only use for specified purposes such as highways and Medicaid.

Finally, the state administers about $5 billion in cash funds, money paid by citizens but restricted to specific purposes. For instances, fees for hunting and fishing licenses are earmarked for fishing and wildlife programs. The biggest cash fund item is college tuition, which is channeled through the state and included in the budget before being returned to the colleges...

So the state budget was cut by $1 billion over three years. This year, it grew just 2.5 percent from that severely depressed base. And that's the truth.

Both editorials lead to a couple of interesting points. First off, The Independence Institute and foes of C&D have done a good job in creating a succinct opposition message, even if it isn't entirely truthful. As Ewegen writes:

But the opponents are being especially loose with their facts because they know the easiest way to defeat a ballot proposal is to sow doubt and confusion. By their cynical logic, even if they get caught in a fib, the process of trying to set the record straight may leave the voters confused and distrustful - and likely to vote "no."

You can save your angry comments that C&D really is a tax increase, because it's just not true. That doesn't mean that calling it a tax increase isn't a good political maneuver, but that still doesn't make it accurate. If you're going to stretch the truth for that argument, then the pro-C&D folks might as well say that C&D is actually a tax reduction because it will prevent future tax increases to pay for projects that would otherwise be cut. That argument would be a bit of a stretch itself, but it's no more unfair than saying C&D is a tax increase.

But this argument isn't entirely relevant anyway, because the point is about what is going to sell voters. If opponents can gain traction with this "tax increase" line, the measure is going to be in trouble come November. As Ewegen correctly points out, if voters are confused they'll vote 'no.'

Proponents of the measure are getting better at their messaging, with the phrase "Colorado Economic Recovery Act" being used more frequently. But it's still not as strong as "tax increase." The Independence Institute and other opponents, however, should take note of the News editorial above. You can call it a tax increase and get away with it, but if your "out of control spending" examples really aren't any better than paying for fireworks at some local event, you shouldn't be trotting out your "facts." Voters don't understand TABOR and C&D, but they aren't stupid. More importantly, the media delights in proving campaign messages wrong, and if you lead with your chin you're going to get your jaw broken.

Posted by Colorado Pols on July 09, 2005 at 11:47 AM | Permalink

Comments

why don't you start lines on the likelihood of Referenda C & D passing?

Posted by: ref c&d line | July 09, 2005 at 12:31 PM

C&D are not a tax increase because Colo Pols say so? Yea, right.

If the state collects $2 in taxes from me my total tax liability is $2. If the state collects $2 and must refund $1 due to TABOR restraints my total tax liability is $1.

Can someone explain how this is not an increase in my tax liability to the state?

Clearly this example is crudely simple, but it shows a point. Also, this does not hold true if there is no state tax revenue beyond TABOR limits. But if there were not going to be any revenue beyond TABOR restraints we wouldn't be talking about C&D, would we?

And it's not like Ewegen and the News don't have their own axes to grind. Hyperbole on one side; boilerplate on the other. What else is new? Each is trying to reach the voter with their own brand while screaming bloody murder at the other.

I guess I'm just not able to muster the overbearing outrage over the I.I. actually pointing out inefficiencies small or big. Wonder where the Post and News fall on this issue when they can take real examples of pork and turn it into an excuse to fork more of our cash over to the bureaucrats? I especially like the News’ saying that yes there is waste in state gov’t, so go ahead and vote to give the state more money anyway because we promise they’ll use that money better. Huh?

Maybe this issue isn't so much about specific examples of X and Y spending as it is about what voters feel the general scope of their gov't should be. Perhaps the traction created by the I.I. and the anti-crowd is a reflection of that and not some silly editorial or radio sound bite?

Posted by: Jason | July 09, 2005 at 07:14 PM

Greetings,

This Wednesday , July 13th at 6 P.M., the Denver Pachyderm Club will host a panel discussion on Referendum C & D. There will be 4 speakers total. The location is Panera Bread on 13th and Grant.

The Speakers will be:

For

Katie Atkinson, Republican political consultant
State Senator Norma Anderson, District 22

Against

Penn Pfiffner, President of CUT ( Colorado Union of Taxpayers)
Beth Skinner, State Director of Colorado Freedom Works

We hope to see you there. Please note that this is an evening meeting.

Posted by: Pachyderm | July 09, 2005 at 07:37 PM

I think we should be taking a closer look at the tax frauds at the Independence Institute. They seem to be better at representing Washington insiders like Dick Armey instead of looking out for what is best for Colorado.

Posted by: marshall | July 09, 2005 at 10:15 PM

Jason Said: "If the state collects $2 in taxes from me my total tax liability is $2. If the state collects $2 and must refund $1 due to TABOR restraints my total tax liability is $1."

Jason, that's not a bad characterization of what C&D are all about. As you describe it, the TABOR rebate is little more than a post-recession tax cut. C&D temporarily eliminate that tax cut, and in return government services that were cut during the recession are restored. That's a fair way to look at it. The people need to decide if they want their $60 tax cut (i.e., the TABOR rebate), or higher-ed, health care, and highway funding.

I'm more than willing to debate the issue of tax cuts ($60/yr) vs. funding for government services (maintain cheaper in-state tuition, and get children immunized so that we're not 50th in the nation any more).

Posted by: Mark | July 09, 2005 at 10:25 PM

I have looked in several likely places for the text of Ref C & D to no avail. All everyone wants to do is tell me what I think.
Anyone have a URL for the actual text? The legislature website apparently calls it something else.

Posted by: Charlie Green | July 10, 2005 at 04:22 PM

C is HB05-1194

http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics2005a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/60F288DEECFCFFE287256F5E0078D116?Open&file=1194_enr.pdf

D is HB05-1333

http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics2005a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/DCE8A5DD419526D287256F8F007A84F7?Open&file=1333_enr.pdf

Posted by: c&d | July 10, 2005 at 04:57 PM

The coverage on C and D has been great, keep the debate coming!

Posted by: Good debate | July 10, 2005 at 08:10 PM

Republicans don't support tax hikes. Thats what I know. No Republican who supports C will ever get another vote from me, and I wager I'm not alone.

I hope the R's who are backing this realize that if it passes they are selling their own agenda down the river. For shame.

Posted by: rediculous | July 11, 2005 at 01:20 AM

Ridiculous said: "the R's who are backing this ... are selling their own agenda down the river."

What, exactly, is "their" agenda? To eliminate the public university system? State funding of higher-ed fell from $800.3M to $591.5M over the past two years -- a cut of more than 25%. Because 2/3 of Colorado's budget is statutorily untouchable, and this share gets fatter every year, the money to balance the budget must come from somewhere. If you think it will come from the ever-shrinking discretionary portion of the budget, give yourself a gold star. You know, things like police, higher-ed, highway improvement projects, child immunizations, pre-natal care, and DMV offices.

Coloradoans are already feeling the effects of these cuts through double-digit tuition hikes, higher health insurance premiums (when the uninsured go to the emergency room, guess who ends up footing the bill), and ever more crowded highways.

The Colorado Economic Recovery Act (Ref C&D) is designed to reverse this trend, and does so without raising any tax rates whatsoever. The income tax, sales tax, and property tax rates you saw the past four years are the same rates you'll see under the Colorado Economic Recovery Act.

Posted by: Mark | July 11, 2005 at 02:27 AM

Thanks for the links. I found them eventually on the Big Horn Institute site. But what about the list of scandalous waste these referenda generate? Where is that one?

My biggest concern was an "escape clause" in C or D letting the legislature change its mind about where the money will go. There doesn't seem to be one, leading me to be much more supportive of getting our schools and medical delivery services back into the 20th century, at least.

Posted by: Charlie | July 11, 2005 at 09:39 AM

The "Independence Institute" is actually a small coterie of un-scholarly ideologues. They're intellectually dishonest. In November 2005 I received a letter from II, written by Jon Caldara, complete with a BUMPER STICKER, for crying out loud, trying to defeat Referendums C and D. Yet they hide behind legal fictions to avoid telling the public who REALLY funds them. They claimed they're "educational" and not actually taking sides on Referendums C and D when the letter was blatantly one-sided.

It may well be that Marc Holtzman's fatcat dad is by far the biggest II contributor. Maybe they only have one or two major contributors without whom they'd be totally washed up. But we won't know, because II won't divulge its contributors as other issue-advocacy groups are required to do.

Posted by: Tancredo Watch | June 26, 2006 at 11:00 PM