Replies

Just because some Republicans supported these measures does not mean that they are RINOs. Douglas Bruce is a Libertarian. He wrote TABOR so that government would be ratcheted down during recessions but not be able to recover in better years. The state government is only allowed to grow a certain percentage from the previous year regardless of need. Colorado faced some bad years recently. Since revenues were way down during those years, the state was not allowed to grow even though we had started to recover and had increased demands and increased revenues. Those increases were mandated to be returned to taxpayers.
If I were Queen, we would have addressed Amendment 23 which was passed a few years ago. It mandates an increase in education spending regardless of the state of the economy. I think that is absurd but we are stuck with it. The polling on Amendment 23 is so strong (still) that we did have have the choice of including it in a compromise.
The bottom line is that with TABOR ratcheting down revenues and Amendment 23 mandating up spending for education, we were in a real bind. This is not a simple tax increase referendum. I am solidly conservative but our government by constitutional amendment (thank you, California) has created a mess. We also have a lottery that was helping fund higher ed and prisons when the enviros got an amendment passed to force all of that money to parks and recreation. So now we have roundabouts on the bike paths because Parks and Recreation has so much to spend.
I have lived in Colorado since 1969. It is frustrating to see these important issues decided by 30 second TV ads. We had to do something, though in this case. The opponents glossed over the shorfall in the state budget. We have had draconian cuts in many areas including higher ed, roads- any place that we can cut that isn't federally or state mandated. The opponents glossed over the shortfall and tried to say that "surely there is waste somewhere in government". Yeah, well, I agree that government is inherently wasteful but that doesn't mean you can truly eliminate it nor would it be enough to overcome the shortfall we were facing.

I happen to agree with Doug and fully endorse TABOR. Just because times were lean before doesn't mean as soon as you get a windfall you go out and blow it. Slow, steady, sustainable growth is what we need not a blanket windfall for the government to waste indiscriminately.

I agree that any amendment, like 23, that mandates expenditure without considering growth in the equation should be eliminated from the state constitution.

Any republican that supported these measures failed miserably here and Owens deserves the lion share of the blame. The RINO's should have pushed for a revision to 23 and a limited 1 year suspension at most (and well defined budget targets for the money). Five years and pretty much spend as you will is an absolute disaster in my opinion.

Mark my words, they will not stop at this and at the end of five years they will want to make it permanent or extend it even further. We used to be a fiscally responsible state, envied by many others, that has ended starting now.