The Colorado Index

Republicans Require Big-Tent To Limit Government Expansion

I believe in liberty, and that liberty requires limited government.  Government, left unchecked, grows in scope and size due to its (mostly) well-intentioned public representatives and employees.  Some people prefer to add regulations and restrictions (see the cell phone texting ban); others prefer to merely transfer wealth to political contributors (see Governor Bill Ritter’s “green” economy measures or the Federal Government taking over GM).  Of course, all government money is transferred wealth that others created, so minimizing this wealth transfer is crucial to maintain individual liberty and property rights.

TABOR, the taxpayer’s bill of rights, kept Colorado’s government from growing out of control in the good times, so the government cuts are not so painful during the lean times.  The budget “hole” for this year is only $1 billion.  That looks pretty good compared to California’s $50 billion deficit. 

However, for some (including Governor Bill Ritter), enough is never enough.  The Governor declared a hiring freeze for the state and then proceeded to add over 2,000 new employees to the government payroll.  Recently, outgoing Senate President Peter Groff (amongst others) gave bonuses to his staff while state employees are asked to take some furlough days to save money.  Ben DeGrow, writing at Mount Virtus, writes of the “Colorado Democrats’ Taxpayer-Funded Arrogance” with regard to a partisan retreat recently held on the taxpayer’s nickel.  How are these programs funded?  Funding comes from tax increases, of course.

While TABOR does not allow for increases in tax collection without a vote of the people, politicians invented rather sneaky ways to circumvent TABOR.  There was the new tax fee on car registrations.  The Colorado Supreme Court declared Governor Bill Ritter’s illegal property tax freeze as legal.  Of course, the court also will get a brand new state-constructed building (apparently its 30-year-old building in Denver is too old).  This ruling led to all sorts of new “allocation strategies,” a code word for raising taxes without a vote.  Hence, everyone’s cigarette taxes increased fifteen cents a pack.  Republican Don Marostica crossed party lines to co-sponsor Senate Bill 228, which removed the six percent annual governmental growth limit.  While the six percent limit may seem low, it merely meant that the government would take only twelve years to double in size.  With that obstacle removed, the government is nearly unlimited in its growth potential.

What could the Republicans do to stop this madness?  They could do little this year.  Kent Lambert’s statement in January that we need to “thin the ranks” of weak Republicans is wrong on multiple levels.  Yes, the ranks of the Republicans are thinner, and the Democrats control every branch of government.  What does a party gain when its membership is ideologically “pure”, yet it is unable to influence public policy?

When asked at a luncheon about what the party should do to Don Marostica due to his sponsorship of Senate Bill 228, State Senator Shawn Mitchell responded, “I think public excommunications do more harm than good.”  Luckily, Kent Lambert did not “thin the ranks”, and Shawn Mitchell’s side won out.  While the Democrats plot to further neuter TABOR, Marostica wants to revisit the true problems in the state: the automatic funding increase in spending due to Amendment 23 and the Gallagher Amendment.

Slowing the growth of government is hard work, and it will require (at a minimum) divided government.  Big-tent Republicanism is the only way to achieve a majority in either one of the legislative chambers.  Therefore, the best way for me to support Tom “A Watcher” McDowell’s campaign for State Senate is to keep this blog alive to promote our shared values in a big-tent Republican Party focused on limited government and fiscal responsibility.

by Civil Sense

Wrong and Right Reasons for Death Penalty Abolition

Recently, the Colorado House passed HB 09-1274 to abolish the death penalty in Colorado.  It now heads to the Senate for debate.  Ostensibly, the "savings" from not having inmates on death row will help research "cold-cases".  The Post reports:

House Majority Leader Paul Weissmann, a Louisville Democrat who is the bill's sponsor, said more than 1,000 homicides have gone unsolved in Colorado over the past 40 years, during which Colorado has executed only one convict. He said more than $800,000 in saved money would be left over every year after the state funds the cold-case unit.

"We ought to fund the unit we created two years ago to try to solve some of those unsolved crimes," [ Paul ] Weissmann said.

The "savings" numbers that Paul Weissmann quotes seem dubious.  Can we really fund the cold case unit and save $800,000 per year from moving the two prisoners on Colorado's death row to the general prison population?     A true present-worth comparison would compare the costs of someone living an entire life in prison versus the twenty years of prison and appeals prior to execution.  It does not appear that Weissmann's bill does that.

David K. Williams at BlueCarp points to this Denver Post story as a better rationale for death penalty abolition.

An El Paso County judge has ordered a new trial for a man convicted of double homicide, saying that DNA and other newly discovered evidence could acquit him.

Tim Kennedy, 52, was convicted in 1997 and sentenced to 50 years for the murders of Jennifer Carpenter, 15, and her boyfriend, Steve Staskiewicz, 37.

"The case starts over now, so we will be preparing for trial if the DA wants to proceed. That remains to be seen," said Kennedy's attorney, John Dicke.

David K. Williams makes a much better case for death penalty abolition than Weissmann's.

Pro-death penalty advocates possess a mind boggling amount of faith in the government's ability to determine life and death. I don't possess that faith. 

Neither does Tim Kennedy.

And it is not just that the government can be wrong. Far worse, it can be, and all too often is, malevolent.

In this case, the judge found that prosecutors failed to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense.

This is a blatant, immoral breach of the public trust.  For some reason, prosecutors get caught up in the "game" to win a case at any cost instead of providing "potentially exculpatory evidence" to the defense.  Our legal system is set up on the presumption of innocence.  Prosecutors who violate this maxim just to score a conviction should be penalized and disbarred for their unethical, unprofessional behavior.

With the vast improvement of DNA and other technologies that help provide evidence of innocence, courts are overturning many old convictions.  While "beyond a reasonable doubt" may be okay for a jury to convict someone of a crime, for death penalty cases, the standard must be higher as the State chooses to deprive the accused of not only liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but his life!

There is always some give-and-take as society balances civil liberties and law-and-order.  However, one must error on the side of civil liberties in most instances.  Therefore, I support the principle of abolition of the death penalty, if not the flawed fiscal rationale behind it.

by Civil Sense

Tea Time in Colorado Springs

“Repeal the Pork, Cut Taxes." 

Colorado Springs Tax Day Tea Party 

The Colorado Springs Tea Party will be at Acacia Park (225 N Nevada) on Wednesday, 

April 15th at 12:00 pm.  Snow or shine.  We will let Congress and the President know 

there are many Americans across the country that are fed up with bailouts, large 

budgets, and high taxes by protesting together.  There are multiple events happening 

across the country simultaneously.  Currently there are 350 events planned across the 

country.  People are gathering with the exact same message, we are everyday, ordinary 

citizens who are fed up with fiscal irresponsibility.  

We have a diverse group of speakers including local fiscally conservative politicians, 

businessmen, radio personalities and grass-roots organizers.  The speakers include:  

Congressman Doug Lamborn, El Paso County Commissioner Wayne Williams, State 

Senators Ed Jones and Andy McElhany, State Representative Doug Bruce, local 

businessman Ed Bircham, former Democrat Andy Colon, local commentators Sean 

Paige and Daniel Cole and representatives from local grass-root organizations Coalition 

for a Conservative Majority and the 912 Project.  KVOR 740 AM Richard Randall will 

serve as emcee.  Music will be provided by the Kenny Giordano Band. 

Post Tea Party event to be hosted at McCabe's Tavern, 520 S Tejon.  There will be food 

and drink specials. 

For those unable to attend a mid-week event, there is a Meet and Greet Sign Making 

Party planned for Saturday  April 11 at 10:00 AM at 710 S Tejon. 

For more information:  Website:  http://www.cspringsteaparty.com/ Facebook Event:  

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1468846332#/event.php? 

eid=70804954621&ref=ts.  Discussion Forum:  

**Please note that this has moved from a march from Pioneer Museum to City Hall.** 

For Immediate Release

 

 

   Contact: Julie Bauer 

April 9, 2009

 

coloradospringstaxdayteaparty@gmail.com

Legislators Resort To Extortion For New Budget

Emboldened by the Supreme Court's ruling that the constitution does not mean what it says, Colorado legislators recently "discovered" all sorts of ways to raise taxes.  Not satisfied with tax and fee increases, extortion of businesses is the next place to fill the budget "hole".  The Denver Post reports:

State lawmakers are proposing $300 million in cuts to higher-education spending as a means of forcing an agency that sells workers' compensation insurance to cough up $500 million.

The move Wednesday by the Joint Budget Committee came the same day lawmakers were told that a Colorado Supreme Court ruling last month upholding a mill-levy freeze also gave them broad discretion to eliminate tax exemptions and tax credits. Some Republicans called that authority "dangerous." (snip)

Of course, for the budget gap in Fiscal Year 2009, the legislature could have just not increased the size of government over 2008 levels.  That would have saved $400 million off the top.  However, the newly unionized state workers likely would have balked at such a suggestion. So, it seems, it is easier for the state to cut college funding.

But the JBC agreed Wednesday to whack nearly half the appropriation that goes to colleges and universities to fill the remainder of the budget hole.

"We probably are looking at closing or consolidating some community colleges," said Sen. Moe Keller, D-Wheat Ridge, chairwoman of the JBC. "We have nowhere else to go."

The cuts to colleges could be avoided, though, if the JBC succeeds in draining money from Pinnacol Assurance, a quasi-governmental agency established by the legislature in 1915 to provide guaranteed workers' compensation insurance to employers.

Most likely, if Amendment 23 did not prevent cutting K-12 education, the budget cut would be for elementary schools.  The extortion "for the children" sounds better when it is for kids than for 18-year-olds.

What happens if the extortion does not work, and Pinnacol prefers to keep its reserve funds.  Everyone's favorite big-spending Republican, Don Marostica, is ready to lead the charge to storm Pinnacol's financial gates.

"They don't want to cooperate with us,"[ Representative Don ] Marostica said. "Now it's up to people in higher ed to see if they can get Pinnacol to transfer the money. Otherwise, they (colleges) are out $300 million."

Don Marostica may want colleges and college students to protest Pinnacol keeping its reserve funds. Perhaps he will succeed in his extortion.

However, it is more likely that the Tax Day Tea Parties on April 15 will attract larger crowds--not because the protestors are seeking government funds, but because they fight for economic liberty from the coercive power of a legislature run amok.

by Civil Sense

We May as Well not Have a Constitution

Today, the Supreme Court published its long awaited ruling on the tax freeze.  It had to rewrite the constitution to do it:

 When it issued its declaratory judgment order, the district 
court did not have the benefit of our recent decision in Barber 
v. Ritter, 196 P.3d 238 (Colo. 2008), in which we held that a 
statute challenged under article X, section 20 must be proven to 
be unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.  The trial court 
erroneously held that the relevant test of SB 07-199’s 
constitutionality came from the interpretive guideline included 
in the text of article X, section 20 to “reasonably restrain 
most the growth of government.”  Applying this erroneous 
standard, the trial court concluded that:  (1) SB 07-199 
“constitutes a net tax revenue gain to the State of Colorado”; 
(2) SB 07-199 was not a change in state tax policy requiring a 
statewide vote; (3) voter approval was required under subsection 
7(c) of article X, section 20; and (4) the waiver elections held 
in the local school districts did not satisfy subsection (7)(c). 
  We conclude that the General Assembly was acting within 
constitutional limits when it amended the School Finance Act.  
SB 07-199’s treatment of the school districts as the relevant 
taxing authorities for purposes of waiving the revenue limits is 
consistent with the constitutional provisions governing dual 
state/local funding and the constitutional provisions applicable 
to public education.  Interpreting article X, section 20’s 
various provisions harmoniously leads to the conclusion that 
only one election at the school district level was required in 
and the local school district elections fulfilled 
that election requirement.  There is ample evidence to find    
SB 07-199 constitutional and we find the plaintiffs failed to 
show it violated any constitutional provision of article X, 
section 20. 

Note that the Supreme Court has substituted a new standard for what is in the plain text of the state constitution and then used that new standard to find a plainly unconstitutional tax freeze constitutional.

The courts are so far out of control that we might as well not have a constitution in this state.

Denver Post Promotes More Taxes

Dog bites man.  Today the Denver Post has not one, but two editorials promoting higher taxes.

The Colorado Contractors association is promoting FASTER in the mistaken belief that they will benefit from the higher fees.  The history of Democrat sponsored tax and fee increases is one of bait and switch.  Nothing in FASTER prevents collecting the new fees and directing them away from road construction.

Ed (Tax and Spend) Quillen doesn't much like FASTER.  He would prefer a 50 cent a gallon gas tax that would, he thinks, raise $1 Billion rather than the paltry $250 million that FASTER will raise.  

Like most liberals who are disconnected from reality.  He pretends in one paragraph that gasoline will never again sell for more than $4/gallon:

Why not increase the gasoline tax by 50 cents a gallon to 72 cents? The current pump price would go from $1.75 to $2.25 — still a relief from the $4.25 of last summer.

And yet in another, he hopes that his tax, combined with future higher gas taxes depresses consumption:

If consumption dropped, even by 20 or 30 percent, there would still be more than enough money to maintain our roads, with the added benefit of less pollution and congestion.

Like any tax and spend liberal, he has no intention of using the money for highway construction:

If consumption stayed at the current statewide level, about 2.3 billion gallons a year, then annual revenue would increase by more than $1 billion a year, more than enough to fix the $500-million-a-year highway maintenance shortfall identified last year by Gov. Bill Ritter's Blue Ribbon Transportation Finance and Implementation Panel. The surplus could go to mass transit, improved bikeways and other ways of getting around. Even hard-core drivers should favor this — the more people who aren't using the road, the more pleasant your driving experience.

Isn't it nice to know that the Denver Post is working overtime to increase your taxes?

One "Republican" Sponsors Bill To Eliminate Spending Limits

Loveland Representative Don Marostica decided that Colorado government should no longer have a spending limit.  According to Marostica, fiscal conservatives are "losers" and "has-beens."  The Rocky reports:

Rep. Don Marostica shot back, however, that legislative leaders are being influenced by "has- beens" and "losers" within the party and that he is going ahead with his efforts.

Marostica, R-Loveland, will introduce a measure today to remove the 6 percent general-fund spending limit, known as Arveschoug-Bird, that has been in place since 1991. He will sponsor it with Sen. John Morse, D-Colorado Springs.

Not only is the constitutionality of a mere statute repealing Arveschoug-Bird dubious at best (as opposed to a TABOR election), but it is poor public policy.  As for his attitude, he pretends to be a fiscal conservative just like the alleged "losers" and "has-beens" he criticized.  Representative Don Marostica's web page states the following.

In the 2008 legislative session, I continued to be a strong voice for fiscal conservatism and for making Colorado a good place to do business, so Loveland families can prosper and get ahead.  I will continue to fight for our city's interest, as difficult economic and financial issues are tackled.

Don Marostica would never be mistaken for a fiscal conservative in real life.  His Colorado Union of Taxpayers 2007 rating was 43.48.  In 2008, he became even more fiscally liberal, earning a 22.22 rating.  His actually sponsored legislation is rather bland, but he did sponsor legislation requiring licensing for motorsports and car sales (thus increasing the regulatory burdens to enter the market), as well as legislation for the lend-lease construction of the new state justice center (as if a 30-year old building is completely obsolete for the Supreme Court).

Ben DeGrow  proudly accepts the "[ loveable ] loser" label.  Amy Oliver thinks that Marostica is "off the reservation and has been for a while."  She details some slimy tactics that Marostica used to derail government transparency legislation, including bullying other Republicans.

Regardless of the merits of the bill's sponsor, the policy of removing government growth limits is terrible.  TABOR and the spending limits are the reason why our economy is not nearly as bad as other states.  California's budget deficit is 29 percent of its budget.  Colorado's is around $600 million dollars.  However, only $250 million in cuts from last years expenditures are required (as the rest was just the 6 percent budgeted increase for 2009). 

Philosophically, when the economy grows at 2-3 percent per year, why should the government grow at 6 percent?  Of course, if the general fund grows at 6 percent, the legislature should set aside 3 percent or more for the "rainy day fund" to smooth the effects of an economic downturn.  However, similarly to the "The Ant and the Grasshopper" fable, big government Democrats and Republicans (such as Don Marostica) wish to spend every permitted cent of taxpayer money for their pet projects during the boom years.  However, winter always comes, and economic downturns occur.  However, unlike the grasshopper who starved, the government will always find new ways to tax and increase fees to fund itself.

by Civil Sense

How Many More Vices Should Colorado Tax?

Not only does the Denver Post love nearly every tax increase proposed, today's house editorial tries to give legislators ideas about new streams of revenue.  It is entitled, "Colorado needs a new drug (to raise taxes on)."

If cigarettes weren't so bad for your health, we'd say smoke 'em if you got 'em. In 2004, voters raised the state tax on cigarettes from 20 cents a pack to 84 cents to fund health-care and smoking-prevention programs. Taxes on other tobacco products also went up. (snip)

Maybe our lawmakers, looking for ways to trim $625 million from the budget, should look for other nervous habits to tax. (Stay off the booze, though. Tax collections on liquor were 2.6 percent below forecasts, and besides, those of us in newspapers could use a drink.)

Ice cream maybe? What about coffee?

Chocolate might do it. Heck, a higher tax levied on chocolate just might erase the state's shortfall as we indulge our nervous selves through this recession.

The Post embarrasses itself not only with its grammatical error (the headline should read "Colorado needs a new drug (on which to raise taxes)")  but with its salivating over new potential sources of plunder.  Of course, ice cream and chocolate are not technically drugs, either, though the nannyists want us to eat less of it, anyway.  However, this article misses two important drugs where taxation could form a new governmental revenue stream. 

First, with all the movement toward marijuana decriminalization, legalization and taxation of the drug could help plug the budget hole.  As for the public safety issues, the state has no problem taxing alcohol which arguably has a far greater harmful potential than marijuana.  Plus, there are many higher-income people in the Denver-Boulder area who would gladly purchase this substance legally, thus allowing for a nice payday in revenue.

The second idea is one to which the Denver Post is addicted: government spending.  To people in power, taxing people to "spread the wealth" is a popular sport.  Perhaps taxing the advocates of higher taxes and the beneficiaries of these pork programs would not increase revenue, but it may bring spending back in line with reality.

by Civil Sense

Trial Lawyer Calls Plain Meaning Of Constitution Text A Myth

Terrance R. Kelly, a lawyer for a firm in Denver, wrote an essay for the Denver Post's site about the alleged "myths" of TABOR.  The intelligently written article on its face  masks some twisted logic.  The following contains the crux of Kelly's argument.

Finally, many if not most TABOR conflicts cannot be resolved by solely pouring over the text. Over the past twenty-five years, the work of federal constitutional interpretation has developed a uniquely aggressive form of literal fundamentalism, which form has also infected the states.

This school of interpretation, like some bible interpreters, claims to divine constitutional "meaning" and "intent" solely from the text, because the text alone represents the meaning and intent of the law-writer - the only path to the Holy Grail of constitutional conclusions.

This viral interpretive method seeks to destroy all other methodologies. It teaches that examining the text's context, or its history, or its precedents, or its results, or its consequences, or any other contribution to a rational analysis, is a great heresy.

Terrance R. Kelly makes a rather simplistic argument.  While the context, history, and precedents are relevant to textual interpretation, they do not supercede the plain meaning of the text.  Lets pretend that the text of the constitution does not matter and only the results or the consequences matter?  Therefore, the next time one gets a speeding ticket or a tax bill, do not pay it.  Call the plain text reading of the law a "myth" since one does not like the results.  Then, Terrance R. Kelley can represent your case pro bono. After all, only the results or consequences count, not the text of the law.

A more cynical person might say that not accepting the plain text meaning of the constitution or the law provides greater potential loopholes in the law.  More loopholes mean more "interpretations" that a trial lawyer could invent and potentially exploit (for additional fees, of course). 

Conversely, accepting the plain meaning of the text means that one may not require a lawyer to interpret it.  This renders lawyers such as Terrance R. Kelly less necessary, and that affects their bottom line.  Mr. Kelly could have simply argued for repealing TABOR spending and revenue limits via a vote of the people.  That is much more honest than forcing the constitution to match one's desired result instead of the text within the document.

by Civil Sense

TABOR Under Fire In Colorado Springs

Well, it is a new year, so it is time for another big government assault on the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR).  The latest attempt comes from Colorado Springs where a panel known as the "Sustainable Funding Committee" advised the Colorado Springs City Council to place a TABOR override on the April Ballot.

The recommendations from the Sustainable Funding Committee include repealing the city's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, extending a property tax that's set to expire and letting the city keep up to $1.2 million in property taxes that otherwise would have to be refunded to taxpayers. (snip)

The measure to repeal the city's TABOR amendment could be the most contentious, [ Chairman Dan ] Stuart said. Colorado Springs voters approved the amendment in 1991, a year before voters statewide approved a similar amendment to the state Constitution that bears the same name.

"This is not an assault on TABOR. State TABOR remains in place," Stuart said. "What we're addressing here is the redundancy of having two sets of rules to address the same issues."

It is quite Orwellian to suggest that an assault on TABOR is not an assault on TABOR.  Perhaps the city TABOR model needs tweaking to match the Colorado model, but an all-out repeal removes the taxpayer protections in case of a statewide recall.  In any event, the rest of the article shows that the true purpose of these measures is simply to increase spending.

The property tax extension got a mixed reception. It would raise about $3 million annually that the Sustainable Funding Committee recommends spending on attracting and retaining businesses. (snip)

The final measure, to let the city keep up to $1.2 million in excess revenue, stirred no apparent controversy. The money was originally estimated at $800,000, but budget officials advised asking voters for a larger amount to hedge against a rise in the final amount of the excess. The money would be used for a building project, so far unspecified.

One wonders what the original purpose behind the property tax was, as the purpose of the tax extension is to give money to bring new businesses to the city.  Presumably, these businesses will compete with others who do not have a public subsidy.

The final measure to keep money for an "unspecified building project" seems even more dishonest.  Surely, Colorado Springs has a list of "priorities" for governmental building projects.  If this money is for a new bridge on Powers Boulevard, a new dog park at the Garden of the Gods or merely adding to a "rainy day" fund, voters should have that important spending information.  Otherwise, the vote is merely for a blank check for wasteful government spending.

The purpose of the Taxpayers Bill of Rights is to protect the taxpayer by limiting the growth of government. As shown in these examples from the Sustainable Funding Committee, there is never a shortage of those wishing to spend more taxpayer dollars and remove these protections. Even well-meaning government officials can believe that increasing government spending is the answer.

Of course, every dollar that the government takes is one less spent in the private sector.  Allowing the property tax to lapse would allow taxpayers to keep more of their money during these tough economic times.  Allowing the government to keep additional revenue instead of returning it to the taxpayers is merely a stealth tax increase.  However, this instance shows that TABOR works effectively: government can grow, but it just needs to ask the voters to allow it to grow first.

by Civil Sense