Posted on 03/21/2002 9:13:10 AM PST by tdadams
| Colorado has an income tax, yet Colorado also has a big budget shortfall thanks to the recession, proving that not even an income tax can assure a state will avoid fiscal crises. But that's not the most important lesson of Colorado's budget crunch. The truth is Colorado's $1 billion shortfall would have been far worse if the state hadn't finally placed a firm limit on the growth of spending a few years ago. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) in Colorado's constitution limits spending growth to the rate of inflation plus population growth. Revenue above that TABOR limit is declared "surplus" and given back to taxpayers, unless voters approve higher spending in a referendum. From fiscal year 1993 until 1997 in Colorado, government spending was allowed to grow 5 to 6 percent per year, and there was no surplus. But since then, until fiscal year 2002, the surpluses have totaled $3.2 billion. More than $1 billion has been returned to taxpayers via rebates and reductions, with more pending. Without TABOR, Colorado would have spent much or all of that $3.2 billion on new projects and expanded programs. In 1999, voters turned down a referendum on a legislative plan to spend that year's surplus of nearly $1 billion. Had they been allowed to spend those funds, legislators today would be faced with funding additional ongoing costs of those projects and programs. TABOR kept the shortfall from being much larger. It is entirely probable Colorado lawmakers themselves are to blame for the entire deficit. Since 1998, they have passed laws allowing them to delay rebating TABOR surpluses. One year, they delayed $927 million in TABOR refunds in order to use the money to pay for capital construction projects not affected by TABOR's spending limits. But that $927 million must be refunded to taxpayers this spring - despite the shortfall. The good news for Colorado residents: TABOR prohibits tax increases without a referendum, so there's no threat of higher taxes to fill the budget gap. Legislators, instead, are doing the sensible thing: making cuts. On a single day, they passed 29 bills totaling nearly $300 million in cuts. The governor ordered a halt to capital construction projects, a hiring freeze, and a 1.5 percent reduction for many departments. Here in Tennessee, there is no effective cap on spending. While revenue in the 1990s grew significantly faster than the combined rate of population growth and inflation, spending grew even faster. Gov. Don Sundquist's administration feasted on record revenues during the late 1990s and spent every dollar in record budgets, setting Tennessee up for a fiscal train wreck when the economy slowed. In an extensive research study published in December by the non-partisan Independence Institute, Dr. Barry Poulson, an economist at the University of Colorado, said TABOR has helped Colorado enjoy a "more stable" fiscal picture. "Because TABOR caps state revenue and spending growth in periods of rapid economic growth, it has had a stabilizing impact on Colorado's fiscal situation," Poulson said. Poulson said states that don't limit spending growth during periods of unusually high economic growth often find it is "very difficult" to make needed cuts to bring spending in line with slower revenue growth. That describes Tennessee to a T. The good news is the leading candidates for Tennessee governor understand the lesson of Colorado. Republican Van Hilleary carries charts showing revenue growth exceeded population and inflation in the 1990s and calls for keeping spending in line with revenue. Democrat Phil Bredesen tells audiences the budget crisis is the result of lawmakers spending money in the late 1990s as if the economy would never slow down, and that if legislators "simply patch it with a new revenue source," the state will have the same problem the next time the economy slows. The Sundquist administration either didn't understand this - or worse - they did but intentionally set Tennessee up for a crisis to open the door to an income tax. Fiscal incompetence or deliberate fiscal malpractice, take your pick. Franklin free-lance journalist Bill Hobbs offers additional TABOR information on his Web site, www.hobbsonline.blogspot.com. |
Not only do TennCare recipients use the Emergency Room for minor ailments like a baby's diaper rash---but they use an ambulance to take them to the Emergency Room!
I guarantee you that if Bredesen wins this is what will happen: He will make a few token cuts here and there for a year then throw up his hands and say we just can't make it without an income tax. Don't blame me, its the other Governors' faults. We in Nashville know this old routine from this liberal con-man. Let the rest of Tennessee be forewarned.
On behalf of all Tennesseans whose voices have not been heard, I am sponsoring Senate Bill 3156 which would allow you to vote this August whether to call a limited constitutional convention on spending and revenue reform in Tennessee without implementing an income tax or sales tax increase. Recently, Senator David Fowler proposed a different and more complex plan that couples a convention with an income tax or a sales tax increase. I believe his plan would be unconstitutional and unwise, and I am writing in order to eliminate any confusion between his plan and the Norris Plan.
The power to tax, or to limit taxation and expenditures, is derived from our Constitution. Article II is presently understood to prohibit a tax on income except for income from stocks and bonds. Despite three Supreme Court rulings holding a general tax on income unconstitutional, other legislators have proposed various statutory (rather than constitutional) income taxes without voting to amend the Constitution accordingly. In my opinion, the controversy over various statutory income tax proposals has arisen because citizens have been prohibited from exercising their constitutional right to vote for or against an income tax amendment.
Under the Norris Plan, you would have the opportunity to vote in August's state primary election for or against a constitutional convention. If the majority of Tennesseans vote for a convention, then you have the opportunity to elect delegates to the convention at the general election this coming November. These delegates would be citizens from your community who would campaign on their own platforms for or against reform. Delegates elected would convene by year-end to deliberate over amendments to the taxing provisions of Article II which some say no longer accommodate the needs of the people of our state. Reforms could include repealing the tax on stocks and bonds, adopting limits on taxation, altering the sales tax, or implementing an income tax. The results of the convention would be presented for your approval or rejection no later than the next general election in 2004, or a special election could be held next year.
During the interim, we can more than adequately fund the State's needs through conservative modifications to the existing sales tax including lowering the sales tax and removing a limited number of outdated exemptions, reallocating other revenues, and continuing to reduce the size of government. According to Article I of our State Constitution, "All power is inherent in the people." The Norris Plan restores your right to exercise that power.
Please write your state senators and representatives and register your support for SB 3156, the Norris Plan.
Sincerely,
Mark Norris
Senator
March 21, 2002
Group looks at dollars, 'cents' of park closings
The Oak Ridger from staff and wire reports
NASHVILLE -- The state may be losing millions of dollars in tax revenue by keeping 14 state parks closed, officials said Wednesday.
That's no surprise to Stephanie Ailey, the Anderson County Tourism Council director, who traveled to Nashville Wednesday to present 60,000 pennies to legislators in an effort to get Norris Dam and other state parks reopened. She estimates that Anderson County gains $3 million a year in sales tax revenue from people visiting and spending time at Norris Dam State Park, and spending money at area businesses.
Norris Dam State Park and 13 others were closed by state legislature last year to save money.
"Our efforts to save $3.2 million will cost us considerably more in lost tourist dollars," said Sen. Jo Ann Graves, D-Gallatin, whose district includes Bledsoe Creek State Park, one of the 14 parks shut down last year in an economy move.
Graves, speaking in a joint meeting of the Senate and House environment committees, said the parks attract a "tremendous" number of tourists who spend money on food, gas and other taxable goods.
Tennesseans for State Parks, an advocacy group, said state parks receive more visitors than any other attraction in Tennessee -- more than 31 million people.
Friends of Norris Dam State Park began collecting pennies earlier this month to send a message to state legislators.
"The Friends group wants the citizens of Anderson County to show legislators that re-opening the parks is important and that finding a stable revenue source for the parks is the only way that they will stay open in the future," County Commissioner Duane Stooksbury, the Friends group's chairman, stated previously in a news release.
Particularly, the penny collection was to draw attention to the Tennesseans for State Parks proposal that would call for revenue earned from a penny of the gasoline tax to be earmarked for the parks.
The move would generate $30 million -- 2 percent of the Department of Transportation's $1.4 billion budget -- that could be used for maintenance and acquisition of additional park land.
Ailey said this morning that members of the committee seemed to be in favor of reopening the parks, but they're not sure about the best way to fund them. The penny bill will be before the legislature next Wednesday, she said.
Lawmakers said there was no use in reopening the parks for the three months remaining in this fiscal year until there is assurance that funds are available to keep them open past July 1.
The state faces a $350 million shortfall this fiscal year and will need about $1.2 billion to fund Sundquist's proposed $9.6 billion budget for next year.
Mark Williams, assistant commissioner of parks for the Department of Environment and Conservation, told the committee that he did not know how much revenue the state will lose because of the park closures.
Graves said the department should move more aggressively toward charging fees for park usage, a plan many other states have used to help with park operations and maintenance.
The department is in the process of expanding a pilot program, with 17 parks expected to be charging an entrance fee by the end of the year.
Penny Brooks of the Sierra Club said the Department of Transportation is a good choice for parks money because new roads destroy farmland and forests, pollute rivers and streams, and fragment the landscape.
Some 80,000 acres a year is being lost to development in Tennessee, said Scott Davis, executive director of the Tennessee chapter of The Nature Conservancy.
Davis called Tennessee the most biodiverse inland state in the country, but said the window of opportunity for preservation is closing.
He said $63 million worth of environmentally sensitive land is for sale in the state. "That land will never be cheaper or in better shape than it is today," Davis said.
Will Callaway, executive director of the Tennessee Environmental Council, said he is disappointed that state officials continue to fail to take action on the parks.
"For months we have listened to the legislature blame the governor or the governor blame the legislature," he said.
I see by this post that you must be a programmed idiot incapable of a civilized disagreement. You really did yourself an injustice with this stupid and gratuitous rant. I used to respect your opinion. Not anymore.
I don't endorse drug use, but also do not believe it's wise policy to destroy the life of a young person by branding them a criminal for simple possession of marijuanathat got you all incensed. Gee, I'm such a liberal. Buy me a one-way ticket to Berkley. Maybe if I favored the death penalty for anyone caught smelling of pot you'd think better of me. And how this tangent of yours is germane to this topic... I'm at a loss.
"I can say without hesitation, that if it were not for the support of the Libertarian volunteers on the protest line, we would probably have an income tax today ..." - Steve Gill, WTN morning talkshow hostI've been at the capital every time the call to action has gone out. I'll gladly accept your apology and as one of those libertarians who fought off the income tax, say "you're welcome."
I want all drugs outlawed and anyone who deals in them punished to the fullest extent. Politicians like Bredesen and libertarians in general push this nirvana of free drug use. I certainly do not want to live in an American Amsterdam.
As I have said before, I am in a no loose situation. If Van wins, I'm happy. If Bredesen wins, I am going to have a great time laughing for 4 years at the Tennessee succers who did not learn from our misery under Bredesen in Nashville. In fact, maybe he would spread some of big spending throughout the State and in some way reduce our debt in Nashville.
I may have made some positive comments about Bredesen's business acumen, but it doesn't mean I'd ever vote for the man.
I want all drugs outlawed and anyone who deals in them punished to the fullest extent. Politicians like Bredesen and libertarians in general push this nirvana of free drug use. I certainly do not want to live in an American Amsterdam.
I know where you're coming from and you're justified to be upset about the drug problem in America, but I cannot support the war on drugs. I think it's completely ineffective, does more harm than good, and drug war proponents use it to increase the federal government and their own power. I think use and possession should be treated medically, not criminally. Selling is another story. That should be a crime.
However, as someone who's been to Amsterdam several times (I've never used drugs, so don't jump to conclusions), I can tell you the things you hear are blown way out of proportion. It's no worse than what you'd see in any city in America, where drugs are still illegal. Legal or illegal, it doesn't seem to make a difference, which makes it a bit hard to justify spending up to $30 billion a year fighting it and throwing 700,000 peaceful pot smokers in jail.
Unfortunately, yes, but Steve Gill was right.
Apology accepted of course. Hobbs is usually on the money most of the time. If he's come close to endorsing Bredesen, I can't say I agree with that, but the political reality in TN is that even Bredesen at this point would be an improvement over Sundquist. Although I'm sure if Bredesen won, we'd be having the same fights and protests at the capital to stop an income tax. He's work just as hard to get one.
We don't have a lot of good options right now in TN, but for gov, Hilleary would be pretty worry-free. It's Fred Thomspon's senate seat I'm worried about now. I'm afraid it's pretty close to a sure thing for Democrat Bob Clement to win it.
Politicians like Bredesen and libertarians in general push this nirvana of free drug use.
Like I said, I understand your aversion to drug use, but I think you're misguided in your suspicion of libertarians' motives. I'm not a drug user and have never taken anything stronger than a Tylenol. It's not about "wouldn't the world be great if everyone used drugs." It's about not conceding to the government an authority that they've usurped and don't legitimately have under the Constitution.
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.