The political season must be upon us in full force now, because here comes Uncle Charley like a fly in the ointment again. And no, I’m not going to comment on any of the silly campaign ads, including the bland and predictable NEA spot for U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall (who is hardly on board the education reform bandwagon). Talking about those might prove to be illegal torture.
Instead, it was this story on Amendment 59 in today’s Denver Post that caught my attention. In the end, the purported solution to the so-called “fiscal knot” of TABOR and Amendment 23 really is all about dismantling the former and simply rearranging the latter. The discipline of revenue limits on state government and the side benefit of TABOR taxpayer refunds will be gone forever.
Meanwhile, the one-quarter of the total state budget dedicated to K-12 education will be specially exempted from lawmakers’ debates about the prioritization of state resources. The savings account just makes it all sound nice.
This remark, however, really got under my skin:
<blockquote>Though critics say the amendment would cleave away a key requirement of TABOR that taxpayers get refunds, [retiring House Speaker Andrew] Romanoff said that “the heart” of TABOR — that all tax increases must have voter approval — would be preserved.</blockquote>
Pardon me, but since when has Romanoff cared a whit about the requirement that voters approve tax increases? He certainly supported Gov. Bill Ritter’s unconstitutional property tax hike. I much prefer the candid remarks of fellow Amendment 59 proponent Cary Kennedy who acknowledged the proposal is designed “to drive a stake in the heart” of TABOR.
Romanoff and Kennedy need to talk to each other: How do you preserve TABOR’s heart after a stake has been driven through it?
I agree with Alexander Ooms. We’ve got to stop hiding behind pleas of “for the children” (a la Ritter’s “Children’s Amendment”), and get to talking about the substance of what Amendment 59 will do. If proponents don’t like TABOR’s limits on government, just say so. Then we can have an honest debate.
Here’s my thumbnail take on Amendment 59: Taxpayers will be the chumps, and we can only guess what the benefits will be (if any) for students. Yet the heavy amount of money pouring into the pro-59 campaign – as highlighted in the Post story – seems poised to take the day. At least as long as we are made to have a warm, fuzzy feeling of how Amendment 59 will be “for the children.”
Popularity: 1% [?]
But, TABOR is complicated. To some, it incorporates and represents the myriad of fiscal restraints that have largely eliminated the idea of representative government for the state of Colorado. To others, it is a more narrow restriction, around voting on new taxes. The former is probably more accurate, as TABOR does explicitly incorporate all prior spending and tax limitations, such as Gallagher and A-B. Which part of TABOR is its “heart” and which is analogous to another part of the anatomy (your choice) is your own call.
In any event, because of TABOR, etc. taxpayers in Colorado now pay less than than taxpayers in most states, and way below national averages. If we were to again become an average tax state, we would have $1.2 billion more in the state general fund each year. That would make our taxpayers “average” Americans, no chumps. Certainly $1.2 billion could fund a lot of education, health and transportation reforms.