( Colorado ) State stuns Auraria, pulls $37.5 million for new science building

The state abruptly pulled $37.5 million in financing earmarked for a science building under construction on the Auraria campus.

The fallout could mean the $120 million facility will not be built, and the campus will be scarred by a giant hole in the ground.

Construction began in December on the five-story, 181,000- square-foot Auraria Campus Science Building...

"What we have clearly seen (is) we are not immune to the forces in the national economy," Buescher said. "And in all likelihood, things are going to get worse before they get better.

At the end of day, everyone wants money from the state. Can we spend money that we don't have? Absolutely not."

The windfall that resulted from Ref C was supposed to solve all the alleged funding shortfalls with education except the RATS; Romanov, Ritter, snakeoil saleswoman Kennedy, et al, have spent all of that money on other things. Effem.

’Ref C shuffle’ betrays voters, budget

August 28, 2007

Opinion Editorial

By Mark Hillman

Two years ago, lawmakers asked voters for a "timeout" from the spending restrictions of the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) in order to allow the state budget to rebound from the recession of 2001-2002. Referendum C, which passed by a narrow 52 to 48 percent margin, erased the TABOR spending limits for five years and permanently increased spending caps thereafter. Voters were promised that K-12 education, colleges and universities, and health care would split the lion's share of the resources if the measure passed. Following the 2005 vote Colorado Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald said, "'We already agreed, if Ref D failed, it would be 33 1/3, 33 1/3 and 33 1/3,' for schools, colleges and health."

But a funny thing happened after the election. Spending on programs not associated with Ref C has grown more than twice as fast as spending on education and health care. Now, voters have cause to believe they were sold a bill of goods. According to the Joint Budget Committee, nearly $3.2 billion from the Ref C windfall has indeed been split between K-12, higher ed and health care. However, as any economist knows, money is fungible.

Since the 2005-06 budget, passed prior to Ref C, general fund spending has increased by $1 billion, or 16.1 percent. Spending K-12, higher ed and health care has grown by just 11.9 percent, or $557 million. Meanwhile, the remainder of the general fund, which wasn't targeted for a Ref C infusion, has grown by 28.7 percent, or $446 million. Advocates for loosening the state's remaining spending limits complain that the six-percent cap on annual growth in general fund spending is too restrictive. Yet even with this limit, lawmakers chose to shift spending away from Ref C beneficiaries and into other programs.

The first "Excess State Revenue Report," mandated by Ref C as a report card to measure whether legislators kept their promises to the voters, explains: "While (programs not identified in Ref C) may have received funds that would not have otherwise been available, they did not receive funding directly from Referendum C."

After Ref C passed, lawmakers approved a fiscal shell game, reducing K-12, higher ed and Medicaid spending from existing sources, then replacing those funds with money from Ref C. In some instances, education and health care actually received less money immediately after Ref C passed.

The Joint Budget Committee's 2006-07 Appropriations Report details what happened. After Ref C passed in November 2005, the legislature cut $306 million in K-12 spending from the general fund and "replaced" it with $261 million from Ref C. A similar cut-and-switch took place in Medicaid. Higher ed initially absorbed a $271 million general fund cut, mostly offset by a $253 million Ref C appropriation.

Such maneuvering gave the legislature a free hand to divert ordinary resources to other programs. Not surprisingly, some who expected their programs to be bolstered are now frustrated by the "Ref C shuffle."

University of Colorado President Hank Brown, widely credited with convincing moderate Republicans and Democrats to support Ref C, recently told higher ed leaders, "I would not use the terminology that higher ed gets 30 percent of Ref C. We are not getting 30 percent."

Brown has cause to feel double-crossed and so do Colorado voters. Prior to Ref C, the state's annual subsidy to colleges and universities was cut from $750 million to $498 million - with students and parents taking up the slack by paying higher tuition. For 2007-08, general fund spending on higher ed is $746 million -- still below pre-recession levels.

Ironically, Ref C's health care beneficiaries have fared even worse. General fund spending on "medical services premiums" has actually decreased since Ref C passed, despite receiving over $1 billion in "excess revenues."

By contrast, K-12 education, which was shielded from cuts even during the recession by its sugar daddy, Amendment 23, has reaped a $359 million general fund increase. It's fair to assume that Colorado voters expected that education and health care spending would fare better than those programs not identified with Ref C. Since that clearly has not happened, convincing voters to approve new taxes for higher ed, transportation and health care -- as leading Democrats have proposed -- will be a tough sell.

Former Senate Majority Leader Mark Hillman is co-author of "Budget Scrutiny Reveals Ref C Shuffle," available at www.independenceinstitute.org.

Is Ref. C cash being spent as promised? No

Before voters decide to increase taxes again, they should know that proponents of the last campaign for additional taxpayer money broke their promises.
By Amy Oliver
Article Last Updated: 09/14/2007 03:16:14 PM MDT

The Denver Post recently reported that proposals for "new and increased taxes are stacking up" in Colorado. So far, the stack is piled 17 high with suggestions to tax everything from income to junk food. However, Gov. Bill Ritter's office promised "to limit the number of proposals presented to voters in 2008."

Before voters decide whether or not to increase taxes again, they should review whether or not proponents of the last campaign for additional taxpayer cash kept their promises. Recent history shows they didn't.

In 2005, lawmakers, business leaders and special interest groups asked Colorado voters for a "timeout" from the spending restrictions of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) in order to allow the state to recover from the recession of 2001-02.

Referendum C, narrowly approved by a 52 percent to 48 percent margin, erased the state's constitutional spending cap for five years and permanently raised baseline spending thereafter.

Ref. C proponents recognized that Colorado taxpayers weren't likely to approve a blank check, so they promised to divide the bulk of the Ref. C revenue equally between K-12 education, higher education and health care programs — to which voters were most sympathetic. Lawmakers even passed a new state law to require that these priorities receive the bulk of the Ref. C funds.

Ignoring other fiscal complications and constitutional commitments, campaign literature boiled it down to a simple three-way split, after reserving about $125 million off the top to pay for Ref. D, which voters nixed. News organizations reiterated campaign literature regarding how surplus TABOR revenue would be spent.

Two days after the 2005 election, Colorado Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald was quoted as saying: "We've already agreed it would be 33-1/3, 33-1/3 and 33-1/3" for K-12 education, state colleges and health care.

According to a Joint Budget Committee report, nearly $3.2 billion in Ref. C surplus already has been split almost evenly between K-12 education, tuition stipends for college students, and health care subsidies for Medicaid participants.

A closer look at the state budget reveals that Ref. C target areas did not benefit as much as the remainder of the state budget. Spending on programs not associated with Ref. C has grown by 28.7 percent, more than twice as fast as spending on education and health care (11.9 percent).

The first Excess State Revenue Report, mandated by Ref. C to determine whether legislators kept their promises to the voters, explains: "While may have received funds that would not have otherwise been available, they did not receive funding directly from Referendum C."

How did that happen? After Ref. C passed, lawmakers approved a fiscal shell game, reducing K-12, higher ed and Medicaid spending from existing sources, then replacing those funds with money from Ref. C. In some instances, education and health care actually received less money immediately after Ref. C passed.

The Joint Budget Committee's 2006-07 Appropriations Report details what happened. After Ref. C passed in November 2005, the legislature cut $306 million in K-12 spending from the general fund and "replaced" it with $261 million from Ref. C. A similar cut-and-switch took place in Medicaid. Higher ed initially absorbed a $271 million general fund cut, mostly offset by a $253 million Ref. C appropriation.

The fiscal maneuvering gave lawmakers the opportunity to divert financial resources to programs not mentioned in the Ref. C language or campaign literature. In the first year alone, lawmakers diverted more than $800 million away from Ref. C priorities and into other spending areas.

University of Colorado president Hank Brown recently told higher ed leaders, "I would not use the terminology that higher ed gets 30 percent of Ref. C. We are not getting 30 percent." Voters were told that without their share of Ref. C dollars, Colorado's public institutions of higher education could be privatized and lower-income students could kiss their college dreams goodbye.

Brown and Colorado voters have cause to feel double-crossed. Prior to Ref. C, the state's annual subsidy to colleges and universities was cut from $750 million to $498 million with students and parents picking up the slack by paying higher tuition. For 2007-08, general fund spending on higher ed is $746 million — still below pre-recession levels.

Ironically, Ref. C's health-care beneficiaries have fared even worse. General fund spending on "medical services premiums" has actually decreased since Ref. C passed, despite receiving over $1 billion in "excess revenues." By contrast, K-12 education, which was shielded from cuts even during the recession by Amendment 23, has reaped a $359 million general fund increase.

Based on promises made during the 2005 Ref. C campaign, it's fair to assume that Colorado voters expected that education and health care would fare better than those programs not identified with Ref. C. Furthermore, all this fiscal funny business occurred under the current budget constraints, including the 6 percent limit on spending growth.

With the tax-hikers' wish list soaring to 17 new taxes and counting, voters would be wise to remember not only the broken promises of the Ref. C campaign but also the old maxim, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Amy Oliver is co-author, with Mark Hillman, of "State Budget Scrutiny Reveals Ref C Shuffle," available at www.i2i.org.

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.