VOTERS: KEEP THE CASH

Colorado Springs Gazette ^ | November 02, 2005 | KYLE HENLEY and PERRY SWANSON

[RockyMtnMan]

DENVER - Referendum C won in the court of public opinion Tuesday as Colorado voters approved the measure to allow the state to keep $3.7 billion that otherwise would have been returned to taxpayers.

The election was marked by a healthy turnout and marred by ballot shortages at many El Paso County precincts. After precincts ran out of ballots, the county’s results were delayed before being added to state totals, adding to the suspense early in the night.

The measure appeared to be winning by about a 53-47 percent margin statewide. El Paso County voters were rejecting Referendum C by about the same margin.

The outcome of a companion measure, Referendum D, remained too close to call. The measure would allow the state to issue $2 billion in bonds for highway projects, school building repairs and pensions funds.

Republican Gov. Bill Owens, who bucked many in his own party by backing Referendum C, said, “I think this is a victory for fiscal responsibility. Once again, Colorado voters have shown they are the ones in charge, and they voted for the future of Colorado.”

Referendum C mandates a five-year timeout from constitutional spending limits imposed by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, a 1992 measure authored by El Paso County Commissioner Douglas Bruce.

State economists estimate that the measure will let government keep $3.7 billion in surplus tax money that would otherwise have been refunded to taxpayers. The money is earmarked for education, transportation and health care.

Referendum C also changes the way TABOR’s spending and revenue caps are calculated to ease the impact of economic downturns on the state budget.

Owens has called TABOR’s “ratchet effect” — meaning TABOR ratchets down spending limits during recessions — a flaw in the amendment that needed to be fixed.

Bruce, who campaigned against Referendum C, said he was surprised that voters believed “lies” from people such as Owens that failure to pass Referendum C would result in severe cuts to state services.

“That’s what this election is about,” Bruce said. “Do you want to be free, or do you want Big Brother to take care of you?”

Bruce has vowed to file a lawsuit if Referendum C passed. In response to the threat, House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, D-Denver, quipped, “There is an old Arabic saying: The dog barks, but the caravan moves on.”

Jon Caldara, the Denver radio talk show host who is director of the Goldenbased Independence Institute, predicted Referendum D will fail and said, “I’ll take that half-loaf rather than no loaf at all.”

Caldara praised political leaders who opposed the measure including U.S. Rep. Bob Beauprez, saying they did so at significant political risk. Beauprez is running for the GOP nomination for governor.

“The entire political infrastructure was against the taxpayer tonight,” Caldara said. “We stood up to them, and we ought to be damn proud of that.”

Another reason for the passage of Referendum C was strong support from Denver media, including the city’s two daily newspapers, Caldara said. The Denver Post on Sunday published a rare frontpage editorial endorsing “yes” votes on the measures.

Bruce’s lawsuit threat has a familiar ring. He has frequently sued government over alleged violations of the constitution, but most of his lawsuits have failed.

The Referendum C & D campaign was expensive. Bruce Benson, co-chair of the Vote Yes on C and D, said supporters raised $7.5 million. Millions more were spent by the opponents.

But when the General Assembly convenes in January, there will be more room in the budget.

How much room depends on whether Referendum D also passes, but it was so close late Tuesday that some officials were predicting the outcome would result in an automatic recount.

As the evening wound down at the Referendum C victory party, Benson mused that the issue had created strange political bedfellows.

Republicans and Democrats who don’t often cross paths on election nights mingled over cocktails awaiting the results.

“Some of the folks here I don’t spend a lot of time with, and I never thought I would,” he said, pointing to a row of Democrats.

The major political rift is within the GOP ranks. Bruce and other El Paso County politicians had said that Republicans who supported Referendum C were RINOS — Republicans in Name Only.

How long it will take for bruised egos to heal remains to be seen.

For Democrats, the outcome is plainly a victory because virtually every elected Democrat in the state supported the measure.

[logician2u]

Douglas Bruce is a Libertarian.

I don't know if you mean that as a slam or a compliment, but you're wrong in any case.

Douglas Bruce is and always has been a Republican, even if many Republicans in Name Only hate his guts.

[CodeToad]

Good pointon the gas price. When I hear someone complain about gas prices, I will simply respond, "Well, then, I hope you weren't one of those idiots who voted for the $3,500 per person tax increase."

[luv2ski]

I should have said that he is Libertarian in his views. Meaning that he would gladly strip the government down to nothing in revenues. I am conservative but I also believe that there are limits. He does not. This was not a slow grow measure (TABOR), it was a "ratchet the governement down year after year regardless of growth" idea. The $3200 refund that the opponents trumpeted was a total lie. In order for a taxpayer to qualify for $3200 over 5 years, they would have to have been in 16 different special interest groups all at the same time. No person exists in Colorado. Most people's rebate would have been modest- around $40 year. Not exactly enough to fund the increase in gas prices!
The other issue being discussed here is actually the more serious one, IMO- and that is the shift in our state from solidly Republican to , at best 50-50. I blame this on the influx of Californians but I think it is also attributable to a weak state party on our side. Ted Halaby stepped down and we have new leadership but it remains to be seen whether we can regain control of either the house or the senate. Plus, Bill Ritter is running for governor and could be very strong- he is the former DA of Denver and is pro-life.We have some big battles ahead.

[dljordan]

"The support for Ref C and D was wrapped up in a slick marketing campaign. People were too stupid to see through it."

I heard a guy being interviewed last night that was saying "if we don't vote yes on this we aren't going to have highways". Good Lord! The propaganda really worked.

[dljordan]

" Columbine incident he immediately caved in to the leftists when they started screaming for more "gun control"

One of the first things I did when I moved to Longmont, Co. in 99' was to join the Tyranny Respone Team and protest Owens gun control stance when he came here. It was amazing! We had SWAT snipers on the roofs ready to take down any of the grannies and old men who were protesting. They took video of us and I took video of them.

[Jim Verdolini]

It kills TABOR and gives the political poweres in office right now, Democrats, $3.7 Billion to use to pander to unions and buy votes, which may well keep the dems in power for the forseeable future.

My wife and I have planned on retiring to Colorado Springs for over 2 years. We were to move next summer. Today, in the face of evidence of the rot of progressive infestation (which is killing maine and is driving us out) we are looking elsewhere.

Maybe Boise Idaho.

[logician2u]

To the contrary, Douglas Bruce believes there are limits. That's what TABOR was all about, to limit the growth of government in Colorado.

What's particularly libertarian about that? Isn't that one of the main planks of conservatism, if not the (pre-Bush era) Republican Party?

The so-called ratchet effect is nothing more than using last year's revenues and expenditures as a base for the next year, adjusting for population growth and inflation. The liberals in the media have been pointing to this "fault" in TABOR which needs correcting, even though thry were totally against the whole thing - including the right of citizens to vote on tax increases - when Amendment 1 came to the ballot in 1992 and claimed, along with Gov. Roy Romer, that passage of TABOR would destroy the state.

There followed some of the most prosperous years in Colorado history, with the state taking in so much in taxes that they had to be rebated to the citizens.

Unfortunately, anti-TABOR politicians of both parties managed to divert much of the excess revenue that should have been refunded to ordinary taxpayers to their friends who got them elected, which is why nobody in the state qualifies for the full amount of tax rebate they have coming -- and why neither side in the Ref C debate was speaking the truth about how much it was going to cost the "average" taxpayer. Too many skeletons in that closet, so just keep the door shut.

[RockyMtnMan]

Colorado Springs is a wonderful place to live and has some of the lowest property taxes in the nation. Sometime very soon they are going to have to institute a "no growth" plan here in CS. Our water supply is already streatched thin and they are still building new homes.

Get in before such a plan is put in place and home values sky-rocket. I imagine the enviro-dim-weenies will push for such a measure before long and given this defeat tells me the Dim's may have the means to make such a plan happen. It's good for me personally as a property owner building equity and until more water is reserved for the city will be neccessary.

CS is a very conservative city and has a large population of military personal. It has all the "feel" of a small town without all the liberal non-sense that goes along with a large city (at least how I see it). It will last for a while, just not sure how long.

[luv2ski]

I still maintain that Doug Bruce is an extremist. This is from the "blue book" from the Colorado Legislative Council explaining the issues on the ballot this year:

Referendum C: State Spending
When the state collects less money than the spending limit
allows, there are no refunds. The next year's limit is calculated from
the amount of money actually collected in the prior year. For
example, the state experienced a recession during 2001 and the
amount of money collected in 2002 was $7.8 billion, while inflation
plus population growth would have allowed spending of $8.1 billion.
The next year's limit grew from the $7.8 billion, not the $8.1 billion.
This lowering of spending is known as the "ratchet-down" effect.
The amount the state can spend under TABOR is now permanently
below what it would be if no recession had occurred and spending
had grown by inflation plus population each year.
Figure 1 shows how the spending limit has operated and is
projected to operate from 1997 through 2010. The solid line is the
state spending limit, the dotted line shows the estimated state
spending limit without a recession, and the shaded areas represent
refunds. Beginning in 2006, the shaded area is the money that
Referendum C is asking voters to allow the state to spend.
There is also a chart showing the ratcheting down effect- see http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/bluebook/BlueBook2005.pdf

[Jim Verdolini]

I have been following the news in the Springs for years. I know their politics BUT, the rot is spreading. Look at the numbers for this vote in El Paso County. Instead of the 70-80% drubbing it should have gotten, it failed by only about 55%. That means that 45% of the voters are in favor of higher taxes and more government. Look at the election in 2004. The state voted Bush BUT let in the spenders taking the legislature. Now the dems have billions with which to pander and maintain their power.

I fear, greatly, that the trend is going the wrong way. The Springs may remain free for the forseeable future but the state is drifting to rot.

You have no idea how sad this all makes me, but I cannot make the mistake of jumping from the pot of boiling socialism that is Maine with it 13% tribute to state and local government, to a pot merely simmering as it slowly comes to a boil.

[logician2u]

I still maintain that Doug Bruce is an extremist.

You're right, he must be a Libertarian then. </sarcasm>

[Rakkasan1]

no matter who you vote for, the gubmint always wins

[Reaganghost]

"We already have "term limits". They are called "elections".

People who believe that statement have no depth of understanding of our political system. Equating elections with term limits is not only an oxymoron, it is analogous to equating the invention of a stone age club or the bow and arrow as being equivalent to discovering weapons of mass destruction. Here are some of the advantages held by incumbents:

• As "news makers," they are regularly featured on the evening news related to legislation passed or for their views on pending legislation. (You can't buy this kind of publicity.)
• Legislatures preside over budgets and appropriations. Legislators get to take credit for all spending where they voted for legislation perceived as being positive.
• Better yet legislators get to vote and claim credit for any legislation or tax cut that might be perceived as saving taxpayers a buck or two.
• Challengers that have not been beaten in prior elections do not get to claim these benefits. (Challengers can't buy this kind of publicity, even if they have the money to pay for it.)
• Last, but certainly not least, incumbents' control over the public purse effectively empowers the incumbent to buy his or her own reelection using the public treasury, even before they start raising campaign funding. (Incumbents have a substantial advantage in raising campaign funding because incumbents rarely lose and most campaign funding has nothing to do with issue or candidate promotion, but is actually a form of buying access to elected officials.)

The United States cannot survive if we do not pass a Constitutional Amendment that provides Term Limits for members of Congress and the Federal Judiciary. If you believe your state can remain solvent without Term Limits, you are living a fantasy,

[manwiththehands]

I don't care if an incumbent has an "advantage". That's not a problem with the election system. That's a problem with campaigns and campaign financing. And if I have an elected official who I'm happy with after 2 or 3 terms, why do I need to "force" him out of office with a term limit? I don't have many answers, but a democracy isn't really a true democracy if a candidate can't stay in office as long as his/her constituents want.

[Eagles Talon IV]

Hard to argue against that.

[Reaganghost]

"..democracy isn't really a true democracy if a candidate can't stay in office as long as his/her constituents want."

This is not a democracy. It was never intended to be a democracy. It is a republic. All democracies end in bankruptcy or hyperinflation whenever the public learns to vote itself benefits from the treasury. Incumbents are the mechanism by which republics are turned into democracies by surrogates.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But when you want to use incumbents to impose unconstitutional provisions into law, which is exactly what Democrats have been doing since 1935 and what increasingly RINO republicans are doing now, then the country is headed for bankruptcy, dissolution, or civil war. What you seem to be in favor of in Colo is but a snapshot of what is happening on a national scale.

Socialism is the mechanism of how incumbents turn republics into democracies by surrogates. Socialism is not a viable economic model. It fails and will continue to fail every time it is tried. If the United States does not voluntarily abandon socialism before 2016, the United States will be doomed. The United States is still solvent only because the rest of the world is willing to lend it 80% of the combined annual global savings. Our country has been cash flow negative for two full years and we have been consuming our capital base for more than fifty years. Check the graphs below:

If this was a stock, would you buy it? If this was someone applying to you for a loan, would you grant it? If an employee showed you these charts as the foundation for his request for a raise, would you even keep him on the payroll? If this was any incumbent seeking reelection, can you think of any defensible argument for reelecting him or her?

There is no rational defense possible for these charts. Oh, did I mention that the United States is exactly analogous to Enron, except the off balance sheet unfunded liabilities of the United States dwarf what you see above or what any human being is capable of imagining. The unfunded liabilities already equal or exceed the total estimated private net worth of the entire United States Here is the data and here are the charts that support it:

Watch FreeRepublic over the next few weeks. A series of articles will be posted that will show us how to return to our Constitutional roots. Search keywords: freedom and constitution.

[manwiththehands]

Thanks for the education. That's one of the reasons I'm here on FR. I won't back off on my "we already have term limits", but I'll certainly study carefully your information in the coming weeks. I don't believe necessarily that term limits equate with having a true "republic" as opposed to having a "democracy". I think we get into dangerous territory when we start telling incumbents (responsible as well is irresponsible) "time for some new blood" just for new blood's sake.

[luv2ski]

So you're saying I'm not entitled to my opinion? I thought, at least here, that I could say what I believe.

[Squantos]

Wha happened BTTT !

[Sinner6]

I wish it were true, but only about 20 congress seats are going to be competitive in '06. Out of 435 just 20. That is right less then 5% of congress seats are going to have a chance to change hands.

Of course currently republicans are in the majority so that ain't all bad.