Posted on 10/23/2005 2:03:38 AM PDT by goldstategop
The scene may seem familiar to Californians: a Republican governor warning that fiscal meltdown is imminent unless voters approve new rules on how much money the state can spend each year.
But Colorado Gov. Bill Owens isn't looking for the kind of budget cap that California Republicans want voters to approve next month. That was imposed 13 years ago.
Now he is pleading with voters to lift it.
The problem: Colorado's spending controls appear to have worked too well. Now some of the most strident fiscal conservatives in Colorado long viewed as a model for others considering such restraints say the cap has strangled government. There is talk of closing community colleges, privatizing the university system, releasing inmates early.
Owens said he never saw it coming.
"I don't think it was designed to cripple government," he said of the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, or TABOR, amendment his state's voters approved. "This is an unintended consequence."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Oh yeah? And what's wrong with cutting every department, exactly? That's how a spending limit is supposed to work: the government never spends more in revenue than it takes in revenue. Its like the Los Angeles Times inverts the logic of TABOR on its head. If Colorado doesn't have a California-style fiscal hangover, there's something wrong. Happily, Colorado voters are skeptical of the let's allow the politicians to spend like a drunken sailor pitch.
The smaller the government, the better it will perform. That's what the Republican Party has up to now - always advocated and its not something that should change just because the government can't live within its means.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
"the cap has strangled government. "
===
Sound to me like a GOOD thing.
That article is the best endorsement for it I've seen so far...
His opponents have crafted a highly effective campaign around the real costs they say will fall on voters if the cap is lifted. Perhaps the staunchest defender of TABOR is the man who wrote it, a crusty El Paso county commissioner named Douglas Bruce. He says Owens is a "sellout" who has "made himself look like a national fool." At a debate with the governor this month, Bruce pulled a pair of flip-flops out of a bag and handed them to Owens.
"They're saying all the lawns in our parks will shrivel and die, all the children will get Alzheimer's, everything else in the world will go wrong and this place will be a living hell," Bruce said in an interview. "They're trying to scare people."
Bruce says the problem is not a lack of revenue, but a lack of leadership.
"They are saying, 'Because we are weak and can't take control of a budget, you have to give away your spending limit,' " he said. "Now that is a bad deal."
In a word, the elite class must think people are stupid. To lift the spending limit is akin to asking for a match to set the house ablaze. Yeah right. Colorado enjoys low taxes and no multi-million dollar budget deficit to worry about. It could be a lot worse. Which brings to mind the old saying: "If it ain't broke, don't mess with it." What the voters shouldn't do is give the establishment the opportunity to really mess things up.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
Yeah, agreed, but among the biggest problems facing our current society is the reality of many elderly in need of certain supports. These represent the already retired and the soon-to-present-retiring groups who are reliant upon Social Security and Medicare as being available and have limited options otherwise for survival throughout old age.
Society has to help them, is the point. Many object correctly theoretically, but they're humans and not theories and their remaining years need social services for basic life sustaining things such as shelter, food, medical care.
For everyon else, the idea is there's still time to plan ahead but for many already in the elderly years, there's a different set of expectations, is my point.
That group of humans and also the huge illegal alien numbers in the country...where the social services funding is going or at least, has been.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
Don't know if this thread is still alive, but a comment is in order.
Governor Owens is correct about Colorado not having the money to do the things politicians want to do. Owens is a Republican but he's also a politician who thinks his legacy and reputation is dependent on how much he spends on projects versus how much he saves. Colorado seems to have the money to spend on increasing social programs and pet projects but did not save for a rainy day. That alone proves you can't trust politicians to spend wisely. They will spend whatever money they can get from taxpayers, and demand more.
Colorado's spending controls have worked exactly as intended, which frustrates politicians of both parties. Our states fiscal conservatives remain in support of TABOR, contrary to what this article claims. TABOR can be suspended anytime a referendum is placed before voters for approval. The current referendum on our ballot wants to stop TABOR for five years and give a blank check to the state politicians. Had these addressed specific needs, they would stand a better chance of passing, as it's been done in the past. The blank check approach is not a responsible answer to Colorado's budget woes.
In fact, Colorado has two initiatives on our ballot. One to address the so-called shortfall in funding, Referendum C, which actually produces so much extra money that the second ballot question, Referendum D, is a wish list of projects the excess money would pay for.
The real question on the ballot is whether or not the media, politicians and special interest groups were able to scare voters enough to approve them.
The city can not handle it's health care and pension costs and now is cutting services.
When the poop hits the fan you can see the true makeup of a person, or a city. You can see what they are really about. their true priorities.
The city in choosing to cut services shows the true basic function of the city is to transfer wealth from the taxpayers to government workers, providing services is way down the list.
I recall the Mayor of nearby Sterling Heights refer to the city's workers as one of the cities assets. Wrong . They are a growing liability, the furthest thing from an asset. This backwards thinking, that liabilities are assets, is what affects all types of governments. From little cities to big states like California. They see their mission as providing for government workers, "their assets" and not providing the services taxpayers pay for.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
Thanks for the support. TABOR is under assault, that's for sure. Denver will vote to approve but I'm hoping the rest of the state will defeat these initiatives. Polling has them under 50%, which is a good sign, but the propaganda in the papers daily will have an impact on voting.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
Vote NO on "C" and "D"!
I think your point was that their family has to help them. Wasn't it?
Hopefully, Colorado voters will defeat this pair of initiatives, but, as always, Denver and Boulder outweight the rest of the state.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.