We discussed some of the ins and outs of the Referenda C&D debate on Saturday, and some of you who oppose the measure took issue with our analysis that calling it a "tax increase" was inaccurate. We said on Saturday that calling C&D a tax increase is a good political move, but that doesn't make it truthful. On Sunday, The Denver Post took a look at that very question:
There was an interesting exchange a couple of weeks ago between Gov. Bill Owens and former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey over what constitutes a tax increase. Armey...argued that it's a tax increase if the government spends more taxpayer money than it did before.
"Anytime myself and my neighbors have less money, and the government has more money, it's a tax increase," Armey said.
Does that mean, Owens asked, that annual increases in the federal budget are tax increases? Yes, said Armey: "Whatever level of spending ... eventually the taxpayers are going to pay for that."
And you never voted for a budget increase? Owens asked, several times. Nary a one, Armey insisted.
"As one of 435 congressmen, you have that ability," Owens said, "but as a governor, I've got to actually make sure that we have a budget in the state of Colorado, and that is a distinction between us."
This brings up a point we made on Saturday. If opponents of C&D get to call it a "tax increase" on the idea that eventually higher taxes might be paid, then why can't supporters of the measure call it a "tax break" because fixing the budget now will save more money in the long run? The answer: neither makes any real sense outside of making a semantic argument.
Take a look at what else The Post had to say for more explanation...
Recent Comments