Rant on.

For anyone outside the state of Colorado, I apologize for today’s rant.  It has only to do with Colorado and the current efforts of an anti-tax crusader named Doug Bruce.  Mr. Bruce has gotten one tax-reducing initiative after another onto our ballots.  I have seen his would-be destructive efforts in the past here in Colorado Springs, and now he is working at a state level.  I have concluded he is either out to destroy our fine state financially, or he is batshit insane and believes there’s a magical money tree the state and the towns within it can use to pay its bills.  Let’s start with the first thing Mr. Bruce has gotten on the ballot (I have added emphasis to one part):

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning government charges on property, and, in connection therewith, allowing petitions in all districts for elections to lower property taxes; specifying requirements for property tax elections; requiring enterprises and authorities to pay property taxes but offsetting the revenues with lower tax rates; prohibiting enterprises and unelected boards from levying fees or taxes on property; setting expiration dates for certain tax rate and revenue increases; requiring school districts to reduce property tax rates and replacing the revenue with state aid; and eliminating property taxes that exceed the dollar amount included in an approved ballot question, that exceed state property tax laws, policies, and limits existing in 1992 that have been violated, changed, or weakened without state voter approval, or that were not approved by voters without certain ballot language?

Here we have the first of Mr. Bruce’s fantasies exposed.  He is suggesting several localized tax cuts, down to the school district level.  The revenue lost by making these cuts would be replaced “with state aid.”  Okay, where exactly is the state going to get the extra money to fund all of these districts which have lost revenue due to tax cuts?  Even if the state somehow had the funds for this aid, why would it give more aid to local communities than it already does?  There’s no provision in this amendment–to the state constitution, I might add, which hardly seems appropriate for a tax change, in my opinion–that forces the state to make up for the loss.

I’ll add that this amendment finishes with some emotional language, using charged words like “violated, changed or weakened” all together in one phrase.  If there has been a violation of tax laws, they should be challenged in the courts, not in an amendment to the state constitution.  After all, if there has been a violation, changing the law isn’t likely to fix it.  It’s like making burglary more illegal somehow after your house has been robbed.

Ah, but let’s move on.  The above is Amendment 60, here is Amendment 61:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning limitations on government borrowing, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting future borrowing in any form by state government; requiring voter approval of future borrowing by local governmental entities; limiting the form, term, and amount of total borrowing by each local governmental entity; directing all current borrowing to be paid; and reducing tax rates after certain borrowing is fully repaid?

This basically says Colorado can’t borrow money for any reason without a vote from the people of the state.  Wait a minute, though…isn’t this part of why we elect people to be in our state legislature?  Aren’t we paying them to figure these things out?  Sure, there’s lots of other things they deal with, but the handling of state funds, including borrowing money, is part of what our government does.  We elect our officials because we think they can do this job responsibly.  But Mr. Bruce’s ilk thinks every single reason to borrow money should be run by the registered voters of the state, who may or may not be as informed as our government has been about such things because it’s their damn job to be so informed. Oh, and in the meantime, Mr. Bruce wants us to pay off all of our current loans and then reduce tax rates since we don’t owe any more money.  Nevermind the fact that by this point we’re probably in a financial dumpster.

And I have saved the best of the madness for last.  Proposition 101:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning limits on government charges, and, in connection therewith, reducing vehicle ownership taxes over four years to nominal amounts; ending taxes on vehicle rentals and leases; phasing in over four years a $10,000 vehicle sale price tax exemption; setting total yearly registration, license, and title charges at $10 per vehicle; repealing other specific vehicle charges; lowering the state income tax rate to 4.5% and phasing in a further reduction in the rate to 3.5%; ending state and local taxes and charges, except 911 charges, on telecommunication service customer accounts; and stating that, with certain specified exceptions, any added charges on vehicles and telecommunication service customer accounts shall be tax increases?

I will give this proposition exactly one kudo:  It’s attempting to revising statutes, not the state amendment.  After that, though, it’s pure insanity.  First, it wants to reduce vehicle ownership registration to “nominal amounts.”  Such fees are, of course, used for maintaining our roads, so this means we’ll have less money to do so.  The arguments for this proposition I have seen don’t address this; one person said, “We don’t end [vehicle] taxes, but we create a $10,000 sale price exemption over four years to reduce sales taxes, which benefits low-priced cars for low-income people the most.”  This doesn’t answer how we’re going to pay for road maintenance at all, it just re-emphasizes that taxes are being reduced by this amendment.

Let’s review:

Amendment 60 would take money away from schools, and that’s the last place we need to screw up funding.  One counter-argument I read said something about schools needing to perform better because students are taking remedial classes on basic subjects.  How does reducing school funds make them more efficient at teaching students?  The opposite is more likely to be true.  With less funds, there will be less money for teachers’ salaries and thus less teachers.  Less teachers means bigger classes, and its been demonstrated that bigger classes typically don’t perform as well as smaller ones.

Amendment 61 generally makes it difficult for the state to get outside help.  Amendment 60 mentioned that some of the lost revenue would be made up by aid from the state, but the state won’t be able to do that if it cannot in turn get outside aid.  Again, there’s no magical money tree out there, Mr. Bruce.

Finally, there’s Proposition 101.  This is a bad idea on many levels, not the least of which is the reduction in funds to repair and otherwise maintain our roads, many of which are in serious need of such repair.  One part of this wants to reduce vehicle registration to a paltry ten dollars regardless of what kind of vehicle you drive.  That means that if you own a tiny little economy car you’ll be paying the same fees as somebody with an RV bigger than a some people’s living space  It’s simple physics that the RV is going to put more wear and on the road, but thanks to this proposition they won’t pay any extra for its maintenance.

These are all bad ideas.  Put very simply, reducing taxes sounds great–this is why the proponents of the above call them “tax relief”–but taxes must be levied and paid.  The government doesn’t operate on wishful thinking.  These propositions would reduce state revenues by billions of dollars in an economy where the government, just like its citizens, is struggling to stay afloat.  One need only to look at the well-publicized financial issues California is having to see that.  Please, let’s take a little bit of responsibility and vote down this madness.

Rant off.